Liz is vicious because it was personal with her.FLBear5630 said:KaiBear said:A. Then Al Gore should be in prison.Aliceinbubbleland said:The Constitution was not written for liberals or conservatives. It was written for all of us to safeguard our Democracy. Trump has violated that right to be elected. I get that you hard core Christian Conservatives excuse violations of law in order to keep out of ofice what you view as socialistic policies. I just do not understand how you could back an unhinged Trump. If his name was Biden y'all would be ****ting yourselves.Rawhide said:
Conservatives view the constitution as a road map
Liberals view it as an obstacle.
B. Then Bill Clinton should be in prison,
C. Then LBJ should have died in prison.
D. Kennedy should have died in prison.
E. Nixon should have died in prison.
F. Woodrow Wilson should have died in prison.
But people who actually cared about our country refrained from such actions. Because they instinctively understood once one party went down such a path, it would never stop.
They all might. The fact that the GOP chose not to follow up and indict does not make Trump more innocent. Dems are more vicious than GOP, it caught up to them. Blame the Paul Ryan's and Mitt Romney s of the world. More interested in appearing reasonable than winning. Dems don't have such limitations. Only GOP that showed it,Liz Cheney. She is vicious.
He's Going to Jail
52,312 Views |
548 Replies |
Last: 2 yr ago by FLBear5630
I won't disagree. It is a family trait.Forest Bueller_bf said:Liz is vicious because it was personal with her.FLBear5630 said:KaiBear said:A. Then Al Gore should be in prison.Aliceinbubbleland said:The Constitution was not written for liberals or conservatives. It was written for all of us to safeguard our Democracy. Trump has violated that right to be elected. I get that you hard core Christian Conservatives excuse violations of law in order to keep out of ofice what you view as socialistic policies. I just do not understand how you could back an unhinged Trump. If his name was Biden y'all would be ****ting yourselves.Rawhide said:
Conservatives view the constitution as a road map
Liberals view it as an obstacle.
B. Then Bill Clinton should be in prison,
C. Then LBJ should have died in prison.
D. Kennedy should have died in prison.
E. Nixon should have died in prison.
F. Woodrow Wilson should have died in prison.
But people who actually cared about our country refrained from such actions. Because they instinctively understood once one party went down such a path, it would never stop.
They all might. The fact that the GOP chose not to follow up and indict does not make Trump more innocent. Dems are more vicious than GOP, it caught up to them. Blame the Paul Ryan's and Mitt Romney s of the world. More interested in appearing reasonable than winning. Dems don't have such limitations. Only GOP that showed it,Liz Cheney. She is vicious.
Indeed.FLBear5630 said:I won't disagree. It is a family trait.Forest Bueller_bf said:Liz is vicious because it was personal with her.FLBear5630 said:KaiBear said:A. Then Al Gore should be in prison.Aliceinbubbleland said:The Constitution was not written for liberals or conservatives. It was written for all of us to safeguard our Democracy. Trump has violated that right to be elected. I get that you hard core Christian Conservatives excuse violations of law in order to keep out of ofice what you view as socialistic policies. I just do not understand how you could back an unhinged Trump. If his name was Biden y'all would be ****ting yourselves.Rawhide said:
Conservatives view the constitution as a road map
Liberals view it as an obstacle.
B. Then Bill Clinton should be in prison,
C. Then LBJ should have died in prison.
D. Kennedy should have died in prison.
E. Nixon should have died in prison.
F. Woodrow Wilson should have died in prison.
But people who actually cared about our country refrained from such actions. Because they instinctively understood once one party went down such a path, it would never stop.
They all might. The fact that the GOP chose not to follow up and indict does not make Trump more innocent. Dems are more vicious than GOP, it caught up to them. Blame the Paul Ryan's and Mitt Romney s of the world. More interested in appearing reasonable than winning. Dems don't have such limitations. Only GOP that showed it,Liz Cheney. She is vicious.
Trump goes after Liz. Dick defends his daughter.FLBear5630 said:I won't disagree. It is a family trait.Forest Bueller_bf said:Liz is vicious because it was personal with her.FLBear5630 said:KaiBear said:A. Then Al Gore should be in prison.Aliceinbubbleland said:The Constitution was not written for liberals or conservatives. It was written for all of us to safeguard our Democracy. Trump has violated that right to be elected. I get that you hard core Christian Conservatives excuse violations of law in order to keep out of ofice what you view as socialistic policies. I just do not understand how you could back an unhinged Trump. If his name was Biden y'all would be ****ting yourselves.Rawhide said:
Conservatives view the constitution as a road map
Liberals view it as an obstacle.
B. Then Bill Clinton should be in prison,
C. Then LBJ should have died in prison.
D. Kennedy should have died in prison.
E. Nixon should have died in prison.
F. Woodrow Wilson should have died in prison.
But people who actually cared about our country refrained from such actions. Because they instinctively understood once one party went down such a path, it would never stop.
They all might. The fact that the GOP chose not to follow up and indict does not make Trump more innocent. Dems are more vicious than GOP, it caught up to them. Blame the Paul Ryan's and Mitt Romney s of the world. More interested in appearing reasonable than winning. Dems don't have such limitations. Only GOP that showed it,Liz Cheney. She is vicious.
From this we conclude that Dick is vicious?
I am thinking more of his political roles...Osodecentx said:Trump goes after Liz. Dick defends his daughter.FLBear5630 said:I won't disagree. It is a family trait.Forest Bueller_bf said:Liz is vicious because it was personal with her.FLBear5630 said:KaiBear said:A. Then Al Gore should be in prison.Aliceinbubbleland said:The Constitution was not written for liberals or conservatives. It was written for all of us to safeguard our Democracy. Trump has violated that right to be elected. I get that you hard core Christian Conservatives excuse violations of law in order to keep out of ofice what you view as socialistic policies. I just do not understand how you could back an unhinged Trump. If his name was Biden y'all would be ****ting yourselves.Rawhide said:
Conservatives view the constitution as a road map
Liberals view it as an obstacle.
B. Then Bill Clinton should be in prison,
C. Then LBJ should have died in prison.
D. Kennedy should have died in prison.
E. Nixon should have died in prison.
F. Woodrow Wilson should have died in prison.
But people who actually cared about our country refrained from such actions. Because they instinctively understood once one party went down such a path, it would never stop.
They all might. The fact that the GOP chose not to follow up and indict does not make Trump more innocent. Dems are more vicious than GOP, it caught up to them. Blame the Paul Ryan's and Mitt Romney s of the world. More interested in appearing reasonable than winning. Dems don't have such limitations. Only GOP that showed it,Liz Cheney. She is vicious.
From this we conclude that Dick is vicious?
you just posted a refutation of your own argument, as noted in bold above identifying "...the executive of each state...."FLBear5630 said:This is determined in US Code. The electors submitted to the President of the Senate are from the State. Not a group of people that create their own documents. If there is a challenge it is to be submitted in the State Courts and then appeals by the SCOUS. This all happens through the State in the State Capitals, not by the President of the Senate. It is in 3 U.S. Code 5 - Certificate of ascertainment of appointment of elector. Trump lost his law suits and the SCOUS said they would not hear the appeal. He lost, there was no alternate Slate, he could not submit his own Slate. It had to come from the State Executive, bear the State seal and show to be authentic. It seems pretty clear...whiterock said:how does one "falsely present" a "fraudulent slate." Be careful how you answer, lest you risk turning them into legitimate electors in the same way that adding two negatives equals a positive. (wink)Sam Lowry said:It isn't. Whiterock is pulling the same trick that Trump did, representing the false electors as a contingency plan when in fact they were nothing of the sort.FLBear5630 said:If what you are saying is true...whiterock said:Good grief, man! Your first statement there in bold is incorrect. He did not recruit them, and they were not outside the process. They were the electors duly selected at state level by the GOP, in processes authorized by state law! Their job is to serve as electors IF the GOP wins the state Presidential election. And challenges to the election returns were ongoing, at state and federal level. So why would they NOT have been meeting, planning, taking contingency actions, in preparation for possible success in changing the outcome of the election?FLBear5630 said:Trump went and recruited electors outside the process, created fake certificates and told the VP to replace the authentic electors with his, that is the problem. You think that is just OK?whiterock said:Nope. You don't understand the process. There are TWO slates of electors sitting on the desk of the desk of the state official who certifies elections. When that official certifies which candidate won the Presidential election, state law specifies which slate gets certified for the Electoral College. State law also places up on the Electors certain requirements as to how they can/cannot cast their electoral votes The state executive notifies the certified electors, who then meet at the time/place appointed in each state for the EC to meet. They will cast their votes as specified/allowed* by state law and send them to Congress, who then certifies the Electoral Vote.FLBear5630 said:You keep missing the big point, the electors Trump submitted from the "losers" side change the winner. They become the "winners".whiterock said:No, you are drunk on Democrat Kool Aid.FLBear5630 said:The losing Party's electors are of no concern? When they are changing them from what the State submitted to win?? Are you nuts?whiterock said:I have posted that part in bold several times in these threads. Everybody knows how electors are chosen. Everybody knows which slate get certified. In the response above to TWD, I explained how the allegation of fraud/insurrection are preposterous. The "State Executive" (in Tx, the Secretary of State) has statute clearly identifying which slate of electors to certify. There can be no confusion. The actions of electors of the party which lost the election are irrelevant. There was no mechanism for them to somehow substitute their votes for the certified slate.FLBear5630 said:
According to the National Archives, not only the State has to submit by the laws they have in place on election day, but they have to be identified on election day. State legislature have broad authority in this matter, but a person or candidate can't just submit their own slate. He is going to lose.
Appoint electors
The Constitution and Federal law generally do not prescribe the method of appointment, but there are some requirements. States are required to appoint electors in accordance with the laws of the State enacted prior to Election Day. Electors must be appointed on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November (Election Day*).
*States that appoint electors by popular vote (currently all) may include a modified voting period necessitated by force majeure events that are extraordinary and catastrophic as part of 'election day'.
In most States, the political parties nominate slates of electors at State conventions or central committee meetings. Then the voters of each State choose the electors by voting for their preferred candidates in the state-wide general election. While State laws on the appointment of electors may vary, in general the slate of electors that wins the popular vote is appointed by the State's Executive.
Under the Constitution and Federal law, State legislatures have broad powers to direct the process for selecting electors, as long as that process is in place before Election Day, with one exception regarding the qualifications of electors. Article II, section 1, clause 2 of the Constitution provides that "no Senator, Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States" may be appointed as an elector.
You should be far more concerned with the nature of the allegations here. They are trying to criminalize political activity (for the electors) and they are using frivolous prosecution (against Trump) as an campaign tool. It's outrageous. If you stand for it now, it will be used against you in the future.
They are trying to criminalize Trump's actions because he tried to change an election by substituting his own electors. That is NOT troubling to you?
What is bothering you is that he is being called out and made to defend his effort in Court over attempting to steal an election???? He lost, his avenues of appeal were exhausted. So, he went and found "electors" that would vote for him and told Pence to accept those? That is all good?
But make him explain in Court and that is the foul?
Wow, severely disappointed in you. You are typically a very reasonable and objective poster, but when it comes to Trump you just go Kool-Aid...
The losing party's electors are indeed, legally, procedurally, of no consequence whatsoever. They can take no action whatsoever to affect the outcome of the election. Only the campaign can file suit to prevent certification of the election. The electors are literally waiting to see what SOMEONE ELSE, an elected official and a judge, does with their electoral votes. Electors meeting amongst themselves in a small room somewhere down the street from the appointed EC location to discuss or vote amongst themselves cannot accomplish anything, other than to meet statutory deadlines should the election challenges become successful. If the election challenges are not successful, which they weren't, their actions are completely, utterly, 100% irrelevant. The state election official will certify the electoral votes of the side that won the election. There is no practical or impractical, legal or extralegal way for the loser's electoral vote to get substituted for the winner's electoral votes by hook, crook, or oversight. That's what the certification process is all about....to make sure the process was followed. And it was.
Your argument here is all emote and completely divorced from the reality of law and process. I mean, really. Seriously. You're in outer space. Read the law. The Trump campaign followed what the Kennedy campaign did in 1960 as a model. But it's Trump, so obviouslyyyyyyyy INSURRECTION!!!!!!!
I have read the law, there is NO provision for an individual to submit their own slate of electors. Only the State can and they have to be identified on election day, not certification day. Trump found electors between election day and certification day and told Pence to accept those. That is the definition of trying to overturn an election.
Eastman, Powell, Trump, Guliani cannot recruit and submit their own electors from cherry-picked States. It is pretty simple. And when you look at it pretty ridiculous that any adult would think it is all right to do what they did!
As for insurrection, that word gets used an awful lot. I am not sure there is proof that Trump had anything to do with the violence on Jan 6th. Everything I can read suggests that his antics provided an opportunity for others to do their own agenda.
What happened here is, the Trump electors ALSO met on their own and cast votes among themselves for Trump. They then submitted their vote to Congress IN CASE election challenges proved successful at overturning the election. Why did they do this? Because of statutory and constitutional timelines. If those election challenges were to have succeeded at the 11th hour, there might not been enough time in each of the contested states to re-convene the Electoral College and get the votes to Congress. There is precedence for this. Hawaii 1960. Trump campaign modeled their efforts after what the Kennedy campaign did.
Democrats are trying to fool you into thinking that the whole effort was an attempt to sneak in the wrong electors and steal the election by surprise. Fact is, there is no fraud here. Just prudent efforts to be prepared in case courts changed outcomes of elections, which in turn would have changed certified slates of electors.
*remember the TV ads of all the Hollywood luminaries in 2016 encouraging Trump electors to "do the right thing" and refuse to cast their votes for Trump and switch to Clinton? That's because in some states, electors are not bound, and in some it's not entirely clear what their boundaries are. Google up "Faithless Elector." Clinton literally, in nationwide TV ads, tried to steal the election in the Electoral College in 2016. She played out all her options to the bitter end. Did I like it? No. I was pissed. Did I accuse them of insurrection? No. it's their right to be pissy, too. But now the shoe is on the other foot and Dems are alleging insurrection. Telling.......
Nothing at all illegal about alternate slates of electors exercising their 1st amendment rights of political speech and assembly to meet/vote/submit to certifying authorities to ensure all timelines and other pre-requisites were met were courts to change the outcome of state presidential elections. There IS precedent for it.....
Wake up. TDS does bad things to the mind.
We are not talking faithless electors here that were submitted by the legislature. What you are describing basically gives the sitting President the power to operate a shadow election outside the formal process and then have the VP determine elections. You don't see that as illegal? It is Ok for Kamala to chose which electors from cherry picked states in January 2025?
Your allegation here is like this: You don't like your hometown and liver out of state. Your parents die and leave their house to the neighbor, as a thank you for helping them for many years (since you weren't around much). Neighbor does not need the house and immediately lists it for sale. You suspect the neighbor was manipulating your parents and file a lawsuit to contest the will. Trial is October and will likely last a few days While that lawsuit is ongoing, you call the listing agent and, without telling them about your connection to the property, schedule a house tour and bring along your contractor posing as a business partner, so that you can get bids on repairs and upgrades to the house on work you want to do after you win the lawsuit. You also an email to your own realtor stating you intend to sell the house after it is remodeled. You ask for terms of the listing, and likely sale prices, etc.....and state you will be ready to list in November. October comes, and you lose the law suit. The neighbor finds out about all the things you did and makes a complaint to the police about your actions and the DA, with whom you had some contentious relations in the past (you don't like your hometown, remember), files charges on you for criminal fraud. Story makes the paper, because, as it turns out, you happen to be a bit of an ass and have a reputation in the area. You tell your side of the story in the newspaper, the story you will tell in court. Neighbor also files a lawsuit alleging libel, and tortious interference with a contract.
Everybody knows you are an ass, so obviously, by virtue of the allegations & charges, you are a crook.
That's your case here with the electors, in a nutshell.
As stated in Paragraph 62 of the indictment, "the conspirators' plan was not to use the fraudulent electors only in the circumstance that the Defendant's litigation was successful in one of the targeted states--instead, the plan was to falsely present the fraudulent slates as an alternative to the legitimate slates at Congress's certification proceeding."
how can it be "fraudulent" or in any sense a crime for a group of citizens to say to a certifying executive official: "The elected Democrat slate certified by our state is invalid, we believe the elected GOP slate of electors is valid" to a certifying official?" I mean, that was literally the argument made in court. How could it be somehow illegal to make it to an official who has an executive act to perform?
The obvious logic of that question is why Congress specified in statute that the VP involvement in the EV vote count was purely ceremonial, rather than procedural. The new statute removed the VP as a portal thru which to contest an election (thereby implicitly ratifying the validity of what Trump attempted to do.)
What part of "redress of grievances" do you intend to criminialize, Counsellor?
(a)In General.
(1)Certification.
Not later than the date that is 6 days before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors, the executive of each State shall issue a certificate of ascertainment of appointment of electors, under and in pursuance of the laws of such State providing for such appointment and ascertainment enacted prior to election day.
(2)Form of certificate.Each certificate of ascertainment of appointment of electors shall
(A) - set forth the names of the electors appointed and the canvass or other determination under the laws of such State of the number of votes given or cast for each person for whose appointment any and all votes have been given or cast;
(B) - bear the seal of the State; and
(C) - contain at least one security feature, as determined by the State, for purposes of verifying the authenticity of such certificate.
(b)Transmission.It shall be the duty of the executive of each State
(1) - to transmit to the Archivist of the United States, immediately after the issuance of a certificate of ascertainment of appointment of electors and by the most expeditious method available, such certificate of ascertainment of appointment of electors; and
(2) - to transmit to the electors of such State, on or before the day on which the electors are required to meet under section 7, six duplicate-originals of the same certificate.
Not one of those electors WERE the relevant executive of any state in question.
Not one of those electors pretended to be the relevant executive of any state in question.
How on earth could a document prepared by people who were not the executive of each state represent a fraud or an insurrection, when they made no attempt to conceal or confuse who they were and what were their grievances? What kind of nonsense is it which would conclude anyone in Congress could have been mistakenly or willingly bamboozled by this, causing the documents to accidentally or surreptitiously have been used in error or subterfuge? Did the alternate electors steal a Seal of any of the states in question, or fabricate a facsimile of same, and affix it to the documents they submitted in order to fool anyone into thinking they were authentic? (No.) Did they attempt to sneak the document in? (No.)
OR.
Did they simply present their submissions as "the true ones" alongside the certified ones? (yes.) Would not it be more correct to say they stood up in public and shouted to the rooftops that the electoral documents in use should be deemed invalid due to voter/election fraud, and presented an alternative list as the ones with should have been certified? (exactly.) and that the redress they requested to their grievance was for Congress to repair the wrongs done at state level? (plainly.) What kind of fraud is it that stands up in public and protests loudly about what ought to be?....that works openly and earnestly thru existing systems to right the wrongs it believes are underway? (none. it's called democratic process in a free society with 1st Amendment protections.)
The allegation you have bought into is preposterous police-state bull**** designed to justify criminalizing political opposition.
did they forge the state executive signature and seal?whiterock said:you just posted a refutation of your own argument, as noted in bold above identifying "...the executive of each state...."FLBear5630 said:This is determined in US Code. The electors submitted to the President of the Senate are from the State. Not a group of people that create their own documents. If there is a challenge it is to be submitted in the State Courts and then appeals by the SCOUS. This all happens through the State in the State Capitals, not by the President of the Senate. It is in 3 U.S. Code 5 - Certificate of ascertainment of appointment of elector. Trump lost his law suits and the SCOUS said they would not hear the appeal. He lost, there was no alternate Slate, he could not submit his own Slate. It had to come from the State Executive, bear the State seal and show to be authentic. It seems pretty clear...whiterock said:how does one "falsely present" a "fraudulent slate." Be careful how you answer, lest you risk turning them into legitimate electors in the same way that adding two negatives equals a positive. (wink)Sam Lowry said:It isn't. Whiterock is pulling the same trick that Trump did, representing the false electors as a contingency plan when in fact they were nothing of the sort.FLBear5630 said:If what you are saying is true...whiterock said:Good grief, man! Your first statement there in bold is incorrect. He did not recruit them, and they were not outside the process. They were the electors duly selected at state level by the GOP, in processes authorized by state law! Their job is to serve as electors IF the GOP wins the state Presidential election. And challenges to the election returns were ongoing, at state and federal level. So why would they NOT have been meeting, planning, taking contingency actions, in preparation for possible success in changing the outcome of the election?FLBear5630 said:Trump went and recruited electors outside the process, created fake certificates and told the VP to replace the authentic electors with his, that is the problem. You think that is just OK?whiterock said:Nope. You don't understand the process. There are TWO slates of electors sitting on the desk of the desk of the state official who certifies elections. When that official certifies which candidate won the Presidential election, state law specifies which slate gets certified for the Electoral College. State law also places up on the Electors certain requirements as to how they can/cannot cast their electoral votes The state executive notifies the certified electors, who then meet at the time/place appointed in each state for the EC to meet. They will cast their votes as specified/allowed* by state law and send them to Congress, who then certifies the Electoral Vote.FLBear5630 said:You keep missing the big point, the electors Trump submitted from the "losers" side change the winner. They become the "winners".whiterock said:No, you are drunk on Democrat Kool Aid.FLBear5630 said:The losing Party's electors are of no concern? When they are changing them from what the State submitted to win?? Are you nuts?whiterock said:I have posted that part in bold several times in these threads. Everybody knows how electors are chosen. Everybody knows which slate get certified. In the response above to TWD, I explained how the allegation of fraud/insurrection are preposterous. The "State Executive" (in Tx, the Secretary of State) has statute clearly identifying which slate of electors to certify. There can be no confusion. The actions of electors of the party which lost the election are irrelevant. There was no mechanism for them to somehow substitute their votes for the certified slate.FLBear5630 said:
According to the National Archives, not only the State has to submit by the laws they have in place on election day, but they have to be identified on election day. State legislature have broad authority in this matter, but a person or candidate can't just submit their own slate. He is going to lose.
Appoint electors
The Constitution and Federal law generally do not prescribe the method of appointment, but there are some requirements. States are required to appoint electors in accordance with the laws of the State enacted prior to Election Day. Electors must be appointed on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November (Election Day*).
*States that appoint electors by popular vote (currently all) may include a modified voting period necessitated by force majeure events that are extraordinary and catastrophic as part of 'election day'.
In most States, the political parties nominate slates of electors at State conventions or central committee meetings. Then the voters of each State choose the electors by voting for their preferred candidates in the state-wide general election. While State laws on the appointment of electors may vary, in general the slate of electors that wins the popular vote is appointed by the State's Executive.
Under the Constitution and Federal law, State legislatures have broad powers to direct the process for selecting electors, as long as that process is in place before Election Day, with one exception regarding the qualifications of electors. Article II, section 1, clause 2 of the Constitution provides that "no Senator, Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States" may be appointed as an elector.
You should be far more concerned with the nature of the allegations here. They are trying to criminalize political activity (for the electors) and they are using frivolous prosecution (against Trump) as an campaign tool. It's outrageous. If you stand for it now, it will be used against you in the future.
They are trying to criminalize Trump's actions because he tried to change an election by substituting his own electors. That is NOT troubling to you?
What is bothering you is that he is being called out and made to defend his effort in Court over attempting to steal an election???? He lost, his avenues of appeal were exhausted. So, he went and found "electors" that would vote for him and told Pence to accept those? That is all good?
But make him explain in Court and that is the foul?
Wow, severely disappointed in you. You are typically a very reasonable and objective poster, but when it comes to Trump you just go Kool-Aid...
The losing party's electors are indeed, legally, procedurally, of no consequence whatsoever. They can take no action whatsoever to affect the outcome of the election. Only the campaign can file suit to prevent certification of the election. The electors are literally waiting to see what SOMEONE ELSE, an elected official and a judge, does with their electoral votes. Electors meeting amongst themselves in a small room somewhere down the street from the appointed EC location to discuss or vote amongst themselves cannot accomplish anything, other than to meet statutory deadlines should the election challenges become successful. If the election challenges are not successful, which they weren't, their actions are completely, utterly, 100% irrelevant. The state election official will certify the electoral votes of the side that won the election. There is no practical or impractical, legal or extralegal way for the loser's electoral vote to get substituted for the winner's electoral votes by hook, crook, or oversight. That's what the certification process is all about....to make sure the process was followed. And it was.
Your argument here is all emote and completely divorced from the reality of law and process. I mean, really. Seriously. You're in outer space. Read the law. The Trump campaign followed what the Kennedy campaign did in 1960 as a model. But it's Trump, so obviouslyyyyyyyy INSURRECTION!!!!!!!
I have read the law, there is NO provision for an individual to submit their own slate of electors. Only the State can and they have to be identified on election day, not certification day. Trump found electors between election day and certification day and told Pence to accept those. That is the definition of trying to overturn an election.
Eastman, Powell, Trump, Guliani cannot recruit and submit their own electors from cherry-picked States. It is pretty simple. And when you look at it pretty ridiculous that any adult would think it is all right to do what they did!
As for insurrection, that word gets used an awful lot. I am not sure there is proof that Trump had anything to do with the violence on Jan 6th. Everything I can read suggests that his antics provided an opportunity for others to do their own agenda.
What happened here is, the Trump electors ALSO met on their own and cast votes among themselves for Trump. They then submitted their vote to Congress IN CASE election challenges proved successful at overturning the election. Why did they do this? Because of statutory and constitutional timelines. If those election challenges were to have succeeded at the 11th hour, there might not been enough time in each of the contested states to re-convene the Electoral College and get the votes to Congress. There is precedence for this. Hawaii 1960. Trump campaign modeled their efforts after what the Kennedy campaign did.
Democrats are trying to fool you into thinking that the whole effort was an attempt to sneak in the wrong electors and steal the election by surprise. Fact is, there is no fraud here. Just prudent efforts to be prepared in case courts changed outcomes of elections, which in turn would have changed certified slates of electors.
*remember the TV ads of all the Hollywood luminaries in 2016 encouraging Trump electors to "do the right thing" and refuse to cast their votes for Trump and switch to Clinton? That's because in some states, electors are not bound, and in some it's not entirely clear what their boundaries are. Google up "Faithless Elector." Clinton literally, in nationwide TV ads, tried to steal the election in the Electoral College in 2016. She played out all her options to the bitter end. Did I like it? No. I was pissed. Did I accuse them of insurrection? No. it's their right to be pissy, too. But now the shoe is on the other foot and Dems are alleging insurrection. Telling.......
Nothing at all illegal about alternate slates of electors exercising their 1st amendment rights of political speech and assembly to meet/vote/submit to certifying authorities to ensure all timelines and other pre-requisites were met were courts to change the outcome of state presidential elections. There IS precedent for it.....
Wake up. TDS does bad things to the mind.
We are not talking faithless electors here that were submitted by the legislature. What you are describing basically gives the sitting President the power to operate a shadow election outside the formal process and then have the VP determine elections. You don't see that as illegal? It is Ok for Kamala to chose which electors from cherry picked states in January 2025?
Your allegation here is like this: You don't like your hometown and liver out of state. Your parents die and leave their house to the neighbor, as a thank you for helping them for many years (since you weren't around much). Neighbor does not need the house and immediately lists it for sale. You suspect the neighbor was manipulating your parents and file a lawsuit to contest the will. Trial is October and will likely last a few days While that lawsuit is ongoing, you call the listing agent and, without telling them about your connection to the property, schedule a house tour and bring along your contractor posing as a business partner, so that you can get bids on repairs and upgrades to the house on work you want to do after you win the lawsuit. You also an email to your own realtor stating you intend to sell the house after it is remodeled. You ask for terms of the listing, and likely sale prices, etc.....and state you will be ready to list in November. October comes, and you lose the law suit. The neighbor finds out about all the things you did and makes a complaint to the police about your actions and the DA, with whom you had some contentious relations in the past (you don't like your hometown, remember), files charges on you for criminal fraud. Story makes the paper, because, as it turns out, you happen to be a bit of an ass and have a reputation in the area. You tell your side of the story in the newspaper, the story you will tell in court. Neighbor also files a lawsuit alleging libel, and tortious interference with a contract.
Everybody knows you are an ass, so obviously, by virtue of the allegations & charges, you are a crook.
That's your case here with the electors, in a nutshell.
As stated in Paragraph 62 of the indictment, "the conspirators' plan was not to use the fraudulent electors only in the circumstance that the Defendant's litigation was successful in one of the targeted states--instead, the plan was to falsely present the fraudulent slates as an alternative to the legitimate slates at Congress's certification proceeding."
how can it be "fraudulent" or in any sense a crime for a group of citizens to say to a certifying executive official: "The elected Democrat slate certified by our state is invalid, we believe the elected GOP slate of electors is valid" to a certifying official?" I mean, that was literally the argument made in court. How could it be somehow illegal to make it to an official who has an executive act to perform?
The obvious logic of that question is why Congress specified in statute that the VP involvement in the EV vote count was purely ceremonial, rather than procedural. The new statute removed the VP as a portal thru which to contest an election (thereby implicitly ratifying the validity of what Trump attempted to do.)
What part of "redress of grievances" do you intend to criminialize, Counsellor?
(a)In General.
(1)Certification.
Not later than the date that is 6 days before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors, the executive of each State shall issue a certificate of ascertainment of appointment of electors, under and in pursuance of the laws of such State providing for such appointment and ascertainment enacted prior to election day.
(2)Form of certificate.Each certificate of ascertainment of appointment of electors shall
(A) - set forth the names of the electors appointed and the canvass or other determination under the laws of such State of the number of votes given or cast for each person for whose appointment any and all votes have been given or cast;
(B) - bear the seal of the State; and
(C) - contain at least one security feature, as determined by the State, for purposes of verifying the authenticity of such certificate.
(b)Transmission.It shall be the duty of the executive of each State
(1) - to transmit to the Archivist of the United States, immediately after the issuance of a certificate of ascertainment of appointment of electors and by the most expeditious method available, such certificate of ascertainment of appointment of electors; and
(2) - to transmit to the electors of such State, on or before the day on which the electors are required to meet under section 7, six duplicate-originals of the same certificate.
Not one of those electors WERE the relevant executive of any state in question.
Not one of those electors pretended to be the relevant executive of any state in question.
How on earth could a document prepared by people who were not the executive of each state represent a fraud or an insurrection, when they made no attempt to conceal or confuse who they were and what were their grievances? What kind of nonsense is it which would conclude anyone in Congress could have been mistakenly or willingly bamboozled by this, causing the documents to accidentally or surreptitiously have been used in error or subterfuge? Did the alternate electors steal a Seal of any of the states in question, or fabricate a facsimile of same, and affix it to the documents they submitted in order to fool anyone into thinking they were authentic? (No.) Did they attempt to sneak the document in? (No.)
OR.
Did they simply present their submissions as "the true ones" alongside the certified ones? (yes.) Would not it be more correct to say they stood up in public and shouted to the rooftops that the electoral documents in use should be deemed invalid due to voter/election fraud, and presented an alternative list as the ones with should have been certified? (exactly.) and that the redress they requested to their grievance was for Congress to repair the wrongs done at state level? (plainly.) What kind of fraud is it that stands up in public and protests loudly about what ought to be?....that works openly and earnestly thru existing systems to right the wrongs it believes are underway? (none. it's called democratic process in a free society with 1st Amendment protections.)
The allegation you have bought into is preposterous police-state bull**** designed to justify criminalizing political opposition.
“The Internet is just a world passing around notes in a classroom.”
Jon Stewart
Jon Stewart
"Not one of those electors WERE the relevant executive of any state in question.whiterock said:you just posted a refutation of your own argument, as noted in bold above identifying "...the executive of each state...."FLBear5630 said:This is determined in US Code. The electors submitted to the President of the Senate are from the State. Not a group of people that create their own documents. If there is a challenge it is to be submitted in the State Courts and then appeals by the SCOUS. This all happens through the State in the State Capitals, not by the President of the Senate. It is in 3 U.S. Code 5 - Certificate of ascertainment of appointment of elector. Trump lost his law suits and the SCOUS said they would not hear the appeal. He lost, there was no alternate Slate, he could not submit his own Slate. It had to come from the State Executive, bear the State seal and show to be authentic. It seems pretty clear...whiterock said:how does one "falsely present" a "fraudulent slate." Be careful how you answer, lest you risk turning them into legitimate electors in the same way that adding two negatives equals a positive. (wink)Sam Lowry said:It isn't. Whiterock is pulling the same trick that Trump did, representing the false electors as a contingency plan when in fact they were nothing of the sort.FLBear5630 said:If what you are saying is true...whiterock said:Good grief, man! Your first statement there in bold is incorrect. He did not recruit them, and they were not outside the process. They were the electors duly selected at state level by the GOP, in processes authorized by state law! Their job is to serve as electors IF the GOP wins the state Presidential election. And challenges to the election returns were ongoing, at state and federal level. So why would they NOT have been meeting, planning, taking contingency actions, in preparation for possible success in changing the outcome of the election?FLBear5630 said:Trump went and recruited electors outside the process, created fake certificates and told the VP to replace the authentic electors with his, that is the problem. You think that is just OK?whiterock said:Nope. You don't understand the process. There are TWO slates of electors sitting on the desk of the desk of the state official who certifies elections. When that official certifies which candidate won the Presidential election, state law specifies which slate gets certified for the Electoral College. State law also places up on the Electors certain requirements as to how they can/cannot cast their electoral votes The state executive notifies the certified electors, who then meet at the time/place appointed in each state for the EC to meet. They will cast their votes as specified/allowed* by state law and send them to Congress, who then certifies the Electoral Vote.FLBear5630 said:You keep missing the big point, the electors Trump submitted from the "losers" side change the winner. They become the "winners".whiterock said:No, you are drunk on Democrat Kool Aid.FLBear5630 said:The losing Party's electors are of no concern? When they are changing them from what the State submitted to win?? Are you nuts?whiterock said:I have posted that part in bold several times in these threads. Everybody knows how electors are chosen. Everybody knows which slate get certified. In the response above to TWD, I explained how the allegation of fraud/insurrection are preposterous. The "State Executive" (in Tx, the Secretary of State) has statute clearly identifying which slate of electors to certify. There can be no confusion. The actions of electors of the party which lost the election are irrelevant. There was no mechanism for them to somehow substitute their votes for the certified slate.FLBear5630 said:
According to the National Archives, not only the State has to submit by the laws they have in place on election day, but they have to be identified on election day. State legislature have broad authority in this matter, but a person or candidate can't just submit their own slate. He is going to lose.
Appoint electors
The Constitution and Federal law generally do not prescribe the method of appointment, but there are some requirements. States are required to appoint electors in accordance with the laws of the State enacted prior to Election Day. Electors must be appointed on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November (Election Day*).
*States that appoint electors by popular vote (currently all) may include a modified voting period necessitated by force majeure events that are extraordinary and catastrophic as part of 'election day'.
In most States, the political parties nominate slates of electors at State conventions or central committee meetings. Then the voters of each State choose the electors by voting for their preferred candidates in the state-wide general election. While State laws on the appointment of electors may vary, in general the slate of electors that wins the popular vote is appointed by the State's Executive.
Under the Constitution and Federal law, State legislatures have broad powers to direct the process for selecting electors, as long as that process is in place before Election Day, with one exception regarding the qualifications of electors. Article II, section 1, clause 2 of the Constitution provides that "no Senator, Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States" may be appointed as an elector.
You should be far more concerned with the nature of the allegations here. They are trying to criminalize political activity (for the electors) and they are using frivolous prosecution (against Trump) as an campaign tool. It's outrageous. If you stand for it now, it will be used against you in the future.
They are trying to criminalize Trump's actions because he tried to change an election by substituting his own electors. That is NOT troubling to you?
What is bothering you is that he is being called out and made to defend his effort in Court over attempting to steal an election???? He lost, his avenues of appeal were exhausted. So, he went and found "electors" that would vote for him and told Pence to accept those? That is all good?
But make him explain in Court and that is the foul?
Wow, severely disappointed in you. You are typically a very reasonable and objective poster, but when it comes to Trump you just go Kool-Aid...
The losing party's electors are indeed, legally, procedurally, of no consequence whatsoever. They can take no action whatsoever to affect the outcome of the election. Only the campaign can file suit to prevent certification of the election. The electors are literally waiting to see what SOMEONE ELSE, an elected official and a judge, does with their electoral votes. Electors meeting amongst themselves in a small room somewhere down the street from the appointed EC location to discuss or vote amongst themselves cannot accomplish anything, other than to meet statutory deadlines should the election challenges become successful. If the election challenges are not successful, which they weren't, their actions are completely, utterly, 100% irrelevant. The state election official will certify the electoral votes of the side that won the election. There is no practical or impractical, legal or extralegal way for the loser's electoral vote to get substituted for the winner's electoral votes by hook, crook, or oversight. That's what the certification process is all about....to make sure the process was followed. And it was.
Your argument here is all emote and completely divorced from the reality of law and process. I mean, really. Seriously. You're in outer space. Read the law. The Trump campaign followed what the Kennedy campaign did in 1960 as a model. But it's Trump, so obviouslyyyyyyyy INSURRECTION!!!!!!!
I have read the law, there is NO provision for an individual to submit their own slate of electors. Only the State can and they have to be identified on election day, not certification day. Trump found electors between election day and certification day and told Pence to accept those. That is the definition of trying to overturn an election.
Eastman, Powell, Trump, Guliani cannot recruit and submit their own electors from cherry-picked States. It is pretty simple. And when you look at it pretty ridiculous that any adult would think it is all right to do what they did!
As for insurrection, that word gets used an awful lot. I am not sure there is proof that Trump had anything to do with the violence on Jan 6th. Everything I can read suggests that his antics provided an opportunity for others to do their own agenda.
What happened here is, the Trump electors ALSO met on their own and cast votes among themselves for Trump. They then submitted their vote to Congress IN CASE election challenges proved successful at overturning the election. Why did they do this? Because of statutory and constitutional timelines. If those election challenges were to have succeeded at the 11th hour, there might not been enough time in each of the contested states to re-convene the Electoral College and get the votes to Congress. There is precedence for this. Hawaii 1960. Trump campaign modeled their efforts after what the Kennedy campaign did.
Democrats are trying to fool you into thinking that the whole effort was an attempt to sneak in the wrong electors and steal the election by surprise. Fact is, there is no fraud here. Just prudent efforts to be prepared in case courts changed outcomes of elections, which in turn would have changed certified slates of electors.
*remember the TV ads of all the Hollywood luminaries in 2016 encouraging Trump electors to "do the right thing" and refuse to cast their votes for Trump and switch to Clinton? That's because in some states, electors are not bound, and in some it's not entirely clear what their boundaries are. Google up "Faithless Elector." Clinton literally, in nationwide TV ads, tried to steal the election in the Electoral College in 2016. She played out all her options to the bitter end. Did I like it? No. I was pissed. Did I accuse them of insurrection? No. it's their right to be pissy, too. But now the shoe is on the other foot and Dems are alleging insurrection. Telling.......
Nothing at all illegal about alternate slates of electors exercising their 1st amendment rights of political speech and assembly to meet/vote/submit to certifying authorities to ensure all timelines and other pre-requisites were met were courts to change the outcome of state presidential elections. There IS precedent for it.....
Wake up. TDS does bad things to the mind.
We are not talking faithless electors here that were submitted by the legislature. What you are describing basically gives the sitting President the power to operate a shadow election outside the formal process and then have the VP determine elections. You don't see that as illegal? It is Ok for Kamala to chose which electors from cherry picked states in January 2025?
Your allegation here is like this: You don't like your hometown and liver out of state. Your parents die and leave their house to the neighbor, as a thank you for helping them for many years (since you weren't around much). Neighbor does not need the house and immediately lists it for sale. You suspect the neighbor was manipulating your parents and file a lawsuit to contest the will. Trial is October and will likely last a few days While that lawsuit is ongoing, you call the listing agent and, without telling them about your connection to the property, schedule a house tour and bring along your contractor posing as a business partner, so that you can get bids on repairs and upgrades to the house on work you want to do after you win the lawsuit. You also an email to your own realtor stating you intend to sell the house after it is remodeled. You ask for terms of the listing, and likely sale prices, etc.....and state you will be ready to list in November. October comes, and you lose the law suit. The neighbor finds out about all the things you did and makes a complaint to the police about your actions and the DA, with whom you had some contentious relations in the past (you don't like your hometown, remember), files charges on you for criminal fraud. Story makes the paper, because, as it turns out, you happen to be a bit of an ass and have a reputation in the area. You tell your side of the story in the newspaper, the story you will tell in court. Neighbor also files a lawsuit alleging libel, and tortious interference with a contract.
Everybody knows you are an ass, so obviously, by virtue of the allegations & charges, you are a crook.
That's your case here with the electors, in a nutshell.
As stated in Paragraph 62 of the indictment, "the conspirators' plan was not to use the fraudulent electors only in the circumstance that the Defendant's litigation was successful in one of the targeted states--instead, the plan was to falsely present the fraudulent slates as an alternative to the legitimate slates at Congress's certification proceeding."
how can it be "fraudulent" or in any sense a crime for a group of citizens to say to a certifying executive official: "The elected Democrat slate certified by our state is invalid, we believe the elected GOP slate of electors is valid" to a certifying official?" I mean, that was literally the argument made in court. How could it be somehow illegal to make it to an official who has an executive act to perform?
The obvious logic of that question is why Congress specified in statute that the VP involvement in the EV vote count was purely ceremonial, rather than procedural. The new statute removed the VP as a portal thru which to contest an election (thereby implicitly ratifying the validity of what Trump attempted to do.)
What part of "redress of grievances" do you intend to criminialize, Counsellor?
(a)In General.
(1)Certification.
Not later than the date that is 6 days before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors, the executive of each State shall issue a certificate of ascertainment of appointment of electors, under and in pursuance of the laws of such State providing for such appointment and ascertainment enacted prior to election day.
(2)Form of certificate.Each certificate of ascertainment of appointment of electors shall
(A) - set forth the names of the electors appointed and the canvass or other determination under the laws of such State of the number of votes given or cast for each person for whose appointment any and all votes have been given or cast;
(B) - bear the seal of the State; and
(C) - contain at least one security feature, as determined by the State, for purposes of verifying the authenticity of such certificate.
(b)Transmission.It shall be the duty of the executive of each State
(1) - to transmit to the Archivist of the United States, immediately after the issuance of a certificate of ascertainment of appointment of electors and by the most expeditious method available, such certificate of ascertainment of appointment of electors; and
(2) - to transmit to the electors of such State, on or before the day on which the electors are required to meet under section 7, six duplicate-originals of the same certificate.
Not one of those electors WERE the relevant executive of any state in question.
Not one of those electors pretended to be the relevant executive of any state in question.
How on earth could a document prepared by people who were not the executive of each state represent a fraud or an insurrection, when they made no attempt to conceal or confuse who they were and what were their grievances? What kind of nonsense is it which would conclude anyone in Congress could have been mistakenly or willingly bamboozled by this, causing the documents to accidentally or surreptitiously have been used in error or subterfuge? Did the alternate electors steal a Seal of any of the states in question, or fabricate a facsimile of same, and affix it to the documents they submitted in order to fool anyone into thinking they were authentic? (No.) Did they attempt to sneak the document in? (No.)
OR.
Did they simply present their submissions as "the true ones" alongside the certified ones? (yes.) Would not it be more correct to say they stood up in public and shouted to the rooftops that the electoral documents in use should be deemed invalid due to voter/election fraud, and presented an alternative list as the ones with should have been certified? (exactly.) and that the redress they requested to their grievance was for Congress to repair the wrongs done at state level? (plainly.) What kind of fraud is it that stands up in public and protests loudly about what ought to be?....that works openly and earnestly thru existing systems to right the wrongs it believes are underway? (none. it's called democratic process in a free society with 1st Amendment protections.)
The allegation you have bought into is preposterous police-state bull**** designed to justify criminalizing political opposition.
Not one of those electors pretended to be the relevant executive of any state in question."
What are you talking about. Each State certified their electors in December, the State Executive (Governor) certifies the slate. So, why the other electors? Were they pretending to play Congress on a rainy afternoon??
The Eastman scheme was for Pence to not approve any because of the "conflicting electors" and send it back to Congress where each State gets 1 vote. Pence was advised by his counsel and WH counsel he could not do that. Pence testified he was instructed by Trump on January 4th to do it and he said no because he did not have the authority. This is first person, under oath. Not some speculation.
You are really blind on this issue and have really gone full MAGA when it comes to Donald and him doing anything wrong. Surprised, did not take you for the type. Others here, yes. But you have been very objective on other issues. It doesn't seem to matter what docs he has, what he tried to do in GA or instructed Pence to do (who testified, under oath) Donald should not be charged. Huh, surprising.
FLBear5630 said:"Not one of those electors WERE the relevant executive of any state in question.Quote:you just posted a refutation of your own argument, as noted in bold above identifying "...the executive of each state...."Quote:This is determined in US Code. The electors submitted to the President of the Senate are from the State. Not a group of people that create their own documents. If there is a challenge it is to be submitted in the State Courts and then appeals by the SCOUS. This all happens through the State in the State Capitals, not by the President of the Senate. It is in 3 U.S. Code 5 - Certificate of ascertainment of appointment of elector. Trump lost his law suits and the SCOUS said they would not hear the appeal. He lost, there was no alternate Slate, he could not submit his own Slate. It had to come from the State Executive, bear the State seal and show to be authentic. It seems pretty clear...Quote:
how does one "falsely present" a "fraudulent slate." Be careful how you answer, lest you risk turning them into legitimate electors in the same way that adding two negatives equals a positive. (wink)
how can it be "fraudulent" or in any sense a crime for a group of citizens to say to a certifying executive official: "The elected Democrat slate certified by our state is invalid, we believe the elected GOP slate of electors is valid" to a certifying official?" I mean, that was literally the argument made in court. How could it be somehow illegal to make it to an official who has an executive act to perform?
The obvious logic of that question is why Congress specified in statute that the VP involvement in the EV vote count was purely ceremonial, rather than procedural. The new statute removed the VP as a portal thru which to contest an election (thereby implicitly ratifying the validity of what Trump attempted to do.)
What part of "redress of grievances" do you intend to criminialize, Counsellor?
(a)In General.
(1)Certification.
Not later than the date that is 6 days before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors, the executive of each State shall issue a certificate of ascertainment of appointment of electors, under and in pursuance of the laws of such State providing for such appointment and ascertainment enacted prior to election day.
(2)Form of certificate.Each certificate of ascertainment of appointment of electors shall
(A) - set forth the names of the electors appointed and the canvass or other determination under the laws of such State of the number of votes given or cast for each person for whose appointment any and all votes have been given or cast;
(B) - bear the seal of the State; and
(C) - contain at least one security feature, as determined by the State, for purposes of verifying the authenticity of such certificate.
(b)Transmission.It shall be the duty of the executive of each State
(1) - to transmit to the Archivist of the United States, immediately after the issuance of a certificate of ascertainment of appointment of electors and by the most expeditious method available, such certificate of ascertainment of appointment of electors; and
(2) - to transmit to the electors of such State, on or before the day on which the electors are required to meet under section 7, six duplicate-originals of the same certificate.
Not one of those electors WERE the relevant executive of any state in question.
Not one of those electors pretended to be the relevant executive of any state in question.
How on earth could a document prepared by people who were not the executive of each state represent a fraud or an insurrection, when they made no attempt to conceal or confuse who they were and what were their grievances? What kind of nonsense is it which would conclude anyone in Congress could have been mistakenly or willingly bamboozled by this, causing the documents to accidentally or surreptitiously have been used in error or subterfuge? Did the alternate electors steal a Seal of any of the states in question, or fabricate a facsimile of same, and affix it to the documents they submitted in order to fool anyone into thinking they were authentic? (No.) Did they attempt to sneak the document in? (No.)
OR.
Did they simply present their submissions as "the true ones" alongside the certified ones? (yes.) Would not it be more correct to say they stood up in public and shouted to the rooftops that the electoral documents in use should be deemed invalid due to voter/election fraud, and presented an alternative list as the ones with should have been certified? (exactly.) and that the redress they requested to their grievance was for Congress to repair the wrongs done at state level? (plainly.) What kind of fraud is it that stands up in public and protests loudly about what ought to be?....that works openly and earnestly thru existing systems to right the wrongs it believes are underway? (none. it's called democratic process in a free society with 1st Amendment protections.)
The allegation you have bought into is preposterous police-state bull**** designed to justify criminalizing political opposition.
Not one of those electors pretended to be the relevant executive of any state in question."
What are you talking about.
I'm showing the insanity of the "fraudulent elector" scenario you are pushing. There was no fraud at all. They argued that the wrong slate was certified, due to election fraud, and they were part of a larger legal effort in court and in Congress to get that certification overturned. And now you are joining Democrats arguing such is criminal! (even though Democrats launched similar efforts in each of the last presidential elections they lost.)
Each State certified their electors in December, the State Executive (Governor) certifies the slate. So, why the other electors? Were they pretending to play Congress on a rainy afternoon??
The "other electors," as you describe them, were not pretending to be anything. They were duly elected under state law and would become the certified electors should the election challenges be upheld, either by courts or by Congress. The actions they took were not to fool or confuse anyone, but rather to ensure that they satisfied all procedural requirements to cast their ballots should any of those challenges succeed. They could not themselves accomplish anything. They did their part of "due process" to be ready should others doing their "checks and balances" responsibilities find fault with one or more certified slates. Again, this scenario has existed before, and Trump modeled his preparations on actions of other Presidential campaigns. The idea of any illegality is outrageous.
The Eastman scheme was for Pence to not approve any because of the "conflicting electors" and send it back to Congress where each State gets 1 vote. Pence was advised by his counsel and WH counsel he could not do that. Pence testified he was instructed by Trump on January 4th to do it and he said no because he did not have the authority. This is first person, under oath. Not some speculation.
That is a process never done, but clearly available. Otherwise, Congress would not in its next session closed the loophole. Novel? Yes. Unprecedented? Yes. Illegal? Not in the least.
You are really blind on this issue and have really gone full MAGA when it comes to Donald and him doing anything wrong. Surprised, did not take you for the type. Others here, yes. But you have been very objective on other issues. It doesn't seem to matter what docs he has, what he tried to do in GA or instructed Pence to do (who testified, under oath) Donald should not be charged. Huh, surprising.
No, you are blind because you have accepted the "fraudulent elector" narrative put out by Democrats.
This is not about BOM. This is about Democrats trying to criminalize legal theory.
Open your eyes, buddy. You've been had. The precedent being set here is that every appeal of a court or administrative ruling is a potential criminal act.
whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:"Not one of those electors WERE the relevant executive of any state in question.Quote:you just posted a refutation of your own argument, as noted in bold above identifying "...the executive of each state...."Quote:This is determined in US Code. The electors submitted to the President of the Senate are from the State. Not a group of people that create their own documents. If there is a challenge it is to be submitted in the State Courts and then appeals by the SCOUS. This all happens through the State in the State Capitals, not by the President of the Senate. It is in 3 U.S. Code 5 - Certificate of ascertainment of appointment of elector. Trump lost his law suits and the SCOUS said they would not hear the appeal. He lost, there was no alternate Slate, he could not submit his own Slate. It had to come from the State Executive, bear the State seal and show to be authentic. It seems pretty clear...Quote:
how does one "falsely present" a "fraudulent slate." Be careful how you answer, lest you risk turning them into legitimate electors in the same way that adding two negatives equals a positive. (wink)
how can it be "fraudulent" or in any sense a crime for a group of citizens to say to a certifying executive official: "The elected Democrat slate certified by our state is invalid, we believe the elected GOP slate of electors is valid" to a certifying official?" I mean, that was literally the argument made in court. How could it be somehow illegal to make it to an official who has an executive act to perform?
The obvious logic of that question is why Congress specified in statute that the VP involvement in the EV vote count was purely ceremonial, rather than procedural. The new statute removed the VP as a portal thru which to contest an election (thereby implicitly ratifying the validity of what Trump attempted to do.)
What part of "redress of grievances" do you intend to criminialize, Counsellor?
(a)In General.
(1)Certification.
Not later than the date that is 6 days before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors, the executive of each State shall issue a certificate of ascertainment of appointment of electors, under and in pursuance of the laws of such State providing for such appointment and ascertainment enacted prior to election day.
(2)Form of certificate.Each certificate of ascertainment of appointment of electors shall
(A) - set forth the names of the electors appointed and the canvass or other determination under the laws of such State of the number of votes given or cast for each person for whose appointment any and all votes have been given or cast;
(B) - bear the seal of the State; and
(C) - contain at least one security feature, as determined by the State, for purposes of verifying the authenticity of such certificate.
(b)Transmission.It shall be the duty of the executive of each State
(1) - to transmit to the Archivist of the United States, immediately after the issuance of a certificate of ascertainment of appointment of electors and by the most expeditious method available, such certificate of ascertainment of appointment of electors; and
(2) - to transmit to the electors of such State, on or before the day on which the electors are required to meet under section 7, six duplicate-originals of the same certificate.
Not one of those electors WERE the relevant executive of any state in question.
Not one of those electors pretended to be the relevant executive of any state in question.
How on earth could a document prepared by people who were not the executive of each state represent a fraud or an insurrection, when they made no attempt to conceal or confuse who they were and what were their grievances? What kind of nonsense is it which would conclude anyone in Congress could have been mistakenly or willingly bamboozled by this, causing the documents to accidentally or surreptitiously have been used in error or subterfuge? Did the alternate electors steal a Seal of any of the states in question, or fabricate a facsimile of same, and affix it to the documents they submitted in order to fool anyone into thinking they were authentic? (No.) Did they attempt to sneak the document in? (No.)
OR.
Did they simply present their submissions as "the true ones" alongside the certified ones? (yes.) Would not it be more correct to say they stood up in public and shouted to the rooftops that the electoral documents in use should be deemed invalid due to voter/election fraud, and presented an alternative list as the ones with should have been certified? (exactly.) and that the redress they requested to their grievance was for Congress to repair the wrongs done at state level? (plainly.) What kind of fraud is it that stands up in public and protests loudly about what ought to be?....that works openly and earnestly thru existing systems to right the wrongs it believes are underway? (none. it's called democratic process in a free society with 1st Amendment protections.)
The allegation you have bought into is preposterous police-state bull**** designed to justify criminalizing political opposition.
Not one of those electors pretended to be the relevant executive of any state in question."
What are you talking about.
I'm showing the insanity of the "fraudulent elector" scenario you are pushing. There was no fraud at all. They argued that the wrong slate was certified, due to election fraud, and they were part of a larger legal effort in court and in Congress to get that certification overturned. And now you are joining Democrats arguing such is criminal! (even though Democrats launched similar efforts in each of the last presidential elections they lost.)
Each State certified their electors in December, the State Executive (Governor) certifies the slate. So, why the other electors? Were they pretending to play Congress on a rainy afternoon??
The "other electors," as you describe them, were not pretending to be anything. They were duly elected under state law and would become the certified electors should the election challenges be upheld, either by courts or by Congress. The actions they took were not to fool or confuse anyone, but rather to ensure that they satisfied all procedural requirements to cast their ballots should any of those challenges succeed. They could not themselves accomplish anything. They did their part of "due process" to be ready should others doing their "checks and balances" responsibilities find fault with one or more certified slates. Again, this scenario has existed before, and Trump modeled his preparations on actions of other Presidential campaigns. The idea of any illegality is outrageous.
The Eastman scheme was for Pence to not approve any because of the "conflicting electors" and send it back to Congress where each State gets 1 vote. Pence was advised by his counsel and WH counsel he could not do that. Pence testified he was instructed by Trump on January 4th to do it and he said no because he did not have the authority. This is first person, under oath. Not some speculation.
That is a process never done, but clearly available. Otherwise, Congress would not in its next session closed the loophole. Novel? Yes. Unprecedented? Yes. Illegal? Not in the least.
You are really blind on this issue and have really gone full MAGA when it comes to Donald and him doing anything wrong. Surprised, did not take you for the type. Others here, yes. But you have been very objective on other issues. It doesn't seem to matter what docs he has, what he tried to do in GA or instructed Pence to do (who testified, under oath) Donald should not be charged. Huh, surprising.
No, you are blind because you have accepted the "fraudulent elector" narrative put out by Democrats.
This is not about BOM. This is about Democrats trying to criminalize legal theory.
Open your eyes, buddy. You've been had.
Funny, there is a motion to Dismiss. If you are right, it should be a slam dunk. If the case is dismissed, I will be the first to admit he should not have been charged. If the Judge throws out the motion, will you admit that there is enough here to try?
Or, will you go full MAGA and say that the system is out to get Donald and the Judge is crooked too?
Did the MSM drive you crazy, or have you been that way since Trump was first elected?
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Oldbear83 said:
Did the MSM drive you crazy, or have you been that way since Trump was first elected?
MSM? Need help here.
Something set you off, sure wasn't facts, so I figured it was the TV, like so many people do now.FLBear5630 said:Oldbear83 said:
Did the MSM drive you crazy, or have you been that way since Trump was first elected?
MSM? Need help here.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Still not sure what MSM is, but I am not set off. Just responding to a conversation. I voted for Trump both times. Still think he had good policies, but also think that guy is gone. Replaced with a vindictive, mob-boss persona caricature that is out for revenge. We lost too much time since 2020 to play those games. He was indicted, the process has to play out. Maybe case will be dismissed.Oldbear83 said:Something set you off, sure wasn't facts, so I figured it was the TV, like so many people do now.FLBear5630 said:Oldbear83 said:
Did the MSM drive you crazy, or have you been that way since Trump was first elected?
MSM? Need help here.
"Replaced with a vindictive, mob-boss persona caricature that is out for revenge."
Son, that is straight out of the WaPo. I also don't plan to vote for Trump in the 2024 primary, but that 'mob boss' crap is complete BS and you know it, or at least the adults do.
Son, that is straight out of the WaPo. I also don't plan to vote for Trump in the 2024 primary, but that 'mob boss' crap is complete BS and you know it, or at least the adults do.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Have you listened to any of his rallies? This is not the same guy that came down the elevator. If it is Biden and Trump, I will vote Trump. While we are in the Primary mode and that decision is still open, I voice my opinions on the guy. I hope it is not him.Oldbear83 said:
"Replaced with a vindictive, mob-boss persona caricature that is out for revenge."
Son, that is straight out of the WaPo. I also don't plan to vote for Trump in the 2024 primary, but that 'mob boss' crap is complete BS and you know it, or at least the adults do.
Dail?
PA.
- UL
... and, as always, TIA.
BID.
PA.
- UL
... and, as always, TIA.
BID.
arbyscoin - the only crypto you can eat.
This is not the same electorate, either. Russia Hoax, 2020 election shenanigans, Covid, border chaos, crime in the streets, war in Ukraine, etc.... I mean, the list is quite long.FLBear5630 said:Have you listened to any of his rallies? This is not the same guy that came down the elevator. If it is Biden and Trump, I will vote Trump. While we are in the Primary mode and that decision is still open, I voice my opinions on the guy. I hope it is not him.Oldbear83 said:
"Replaced with a vindictive, mob-boss persona caricature that is out for revenge."
Son, that is straight out of the WaPo. I also don't plan to vote for Trump in the 2024 primary, but that 'mob boss' crap is complete BS and you know it, or at least the adults do.
Of all the fallacies about Trump, the granddaddy of them all is that HE has seduced the electorate into populism. The reality is, Trump would not exist if populist sentiment had not taken over the party and much of the center. Social contract is not addressing the needs of ordinary people, and our leaders are virtue posturing over things that do not matter.
he is not the cause.
he is the symptom.
he is the redress of a long list of just grievances.
"Populism is a word you never hear unless societal elites have screwed up and are afraid of losing control."
--whiterock
Fulton Co is indeed corrupt. And to the extent that Soros has bought & paid for most of the prosecutors in major urban centers full of mostly Democrat judges, it's corrupt everywhere. A wide majority of the public sees the dual standard of justice for what it is. And moderate Republicans are comfortable with the strictures, as they believe it will allow them to purify theirFLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:"Not one of those electors WERE the relevant executive of any state in question.Quote:you just posted a refutation of your own argument, as noted in bold above identifying "...the executive of each state...."Quote:This is determined in US Code. The electors submitted to the President of the Senate are from the State. Not a group of people that create their own documents. If there is a challenge it is to be submitted in the State Courts and then appeals by the SCOUS. This all happens through the State in the State Capitals, not by the President of the Senate. It is in 3 U.S. Code 5 - Certificate of ascertainment of appointment of elector. Trump lost his law suits and the SCOUS said they would not hear the appeal. He lost, there was no alternate Slate, he could not submit his own Slate. It had to come from the State Executive, bear the State seal and show to be authentic. It seems pretty clear...Quote:
how does one "falsely present" a "fraudulent slate." Be careful how you answer, lest you risk turning them into legitimate electors in the same way that adding two negatives equals a positive. (wink)
how can it be "fraudulent" or in any sense a crime for a group of citizens to say to a certifying executive official: "The elected Democrat slate certified by our state is invalid, we believe the elected GOP slate of electors is valid" to a certifying official?" I mean, that was literally the argument made in court. How could it be somehow illegal to make it to an official who has an executive act to perform?
The obvious logic of that question is why Congress specified in statute that the VP involvement in the EV vote count was purely ceremonial, rather than procedural. The new statute removed the VP as a portal thru which to contest an election (thereby implicitly ratifying the validity of what Trump attempted to do.)
What part of "redress of grievances" do you intend to criminialize, Counsellor?
(a)In General.
(1)Certification.
Not later than the date that is 6 days before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors, the executive of each State shall issue a certificate of ascertainment of appointment of electors, under and in pursuance of the laws of such State providing for such appointment and ascertainment enacted prior to election day.
(2)Form of certificate.Each certificate of ascertainment of appointment of electors shall
(A) - set forth the names of the electors appointed and the canvass or other determination under the laws of such State of the number of votes given or cast for each person for whose appointment any and all votes have been given or cast;
(B) - bear the seal of the State; and
(C) - contain at least one security feature, as determined by the State, for purposes of verifying the authenticity of such certificate.
(b)Transmission.It shall be the duty of the executive of each State
(1) - to transmit to the Archivist of the United States, immediately after the issuance of a certificate of ascertainment of appointment of electors and by the most expeditious method available, such certificate of ascertainment of appointment of electors; and
(2) - to transmit to the electors of such State, on or before the day on which the electors are required to meet under section 7, six duplicate-originals of the same certificate.
Not one of those electors WERE the relevant executive of any state in question.
Not one of those electors pretended to be the relevant executive of any state in question.
How on earth could a document prepared by people who were not the executive of each state represent a fraud or an insurrection, when they made no attempt to conceal or confuse who they were and what were their grievances? What kind of nonsense is it which would conclude anyone in Congress could have been mistakenly or willingly bamboozled by this, causing the documents to accidentally or surreptitiously have been used in error or subterfuge? Did the alternate electors steal a Seal of any of the states in question, or fabricate a facsimile of same, and affix it to the documents they submitted in order to fool anyone into thinking they were authentic? (No.) Did they attempt to sneak the document in? (No.)
OR.
Did they simply present their submissions as "the true ones" alongside the certified ones? (yes.) Would not it be more correct to say they stood up in public and shouted to the rooftops that the electoral documents in use should be deemed invalid due to voter/election fraud, and presented an alternative list as the ones with should have been certified? (exactly.) and that the redress they requested to their grievance was for Congress to repair the wrongs done at state level? (plainly.) What kind of fraud is it that stands up in public and protests loudly about what ought to be?....that works openly and earnestly thru existing systems to right the wrongs it believes are underway? (none. it's called democratic process in a free society with 1st Amendment protections.)
The allegation you have bought into is preposterous police-state bull**** designed to justify criminalizing political opposition.
Not one of those electors pretended to be the relevant executive of any state in question."
What are you talking about.
I'm showing the insanity of the "fraudulent elector" scenario you are pushing. There was no fraud at all. They argued that the wrong slate was certified, due to election fraud, and they were part of a larger legal effort in court and in Congress to get that certification overturned. And now you are joining Democrats arguing such is criminal! (even though Democrats launched similar efforts in each of the last presidential elections they lost.)
Each State certified their electors in December, the State Executive (Governor) certifies the slate. So, why the other electors? Were they pretending to play Congress on a rainy afternoon??
The "other electors," as you describe them, were not pretending to be anything. They were duly elected under state law and would become the certified electors should the election challenges be upheld, either by courts or by Congress. The actions they took were not to fool or confuse anyone, but rather to ensure that they satisfied all procedural requirements to cast their ballots should any of those challenges succeed. They could not themselves accomplish anything. They did their part of "due process" to be ready should others doing their "checks and balances" responsibilities find fault with one or more certified slates. Again, this scenario has existed before, and Trump modeled his preparations on actions of other Presidential campaigns. The idea of any illegality is outrageous.
The Eastman scheme was for Pence to not approve any because of the "conflicting electors" and send it back to Congress where each State gets 1 vote. Pence was advised by his counsel and WH counsel he could not do that. Pence testified he was instructed by Trump on January 4th to do it and he said no because he did not have the authority. This is first person, under oath. Not some speculation.
That is a process never done, but clearly available. Otherwise, Congress would not in its next session closed the loophole. Novel? Yes. Unprecedented? Yes. Illegal? Not in the least.
You are really blind on this issue and have really gone full MAGA when it comes to Donald and him doing anything wrong. Surprised, did not take you for the type. Others here, yes. But you have been very objective on other issues. It doesn't seem to matter what docs he has, what he tried to do in GA or instructed Pence to do (who testified, under oath) Donald should not be charged. Huh, surprising.
No, you are blind because you have accepted the "fraudulent elector" narrative put out by Democrats.
This is not about BOM. This is about Democrats trying to criminalize legal theory.
Open your eyes, buddy. You've been had.
Funny, there is a motion to Dismiss. If you are right, it should be a slam dunk. If the case is dismissed, I will be the first to admit he should not have been charged. If the Judge throws out the motion, will you admit that there is enough here to try?
Or, will you go full MAGA and say that the system is out to get Donald and the Judge is crooked too?
I'm sure one of the attorneys here can tell us the percentage of cases that are tossed at the first motion to dismiss, and I'd bet a lot that you have to get a place or three to the right of the decimal point before you get to a whole number. You can 110% take it to the bank the judges in the Trump trials will let the cases go to the juries, and that does not reflect a flicker of a shadow on the probity of the process. The RICO charges in Fulton Co are preposterous.
You may be right. Populist are typically the fringes that either hate all Government or want extreme change.whiterock said:This is not the same electorate, either. Russia Hoax, 2020 election shenanigans, Covid, border chaos, crime in the streets, war in Ukraine, etc.... I mean, the list is quite long.FLBear5630 said:Have you listened to any of his rallies? This is not the same guy that came down the elevator. If it is Biden and Trump, I will vote Trump. While we are in the Primary mode and that decision is still open, I voice my opinions on the guy. I hope it is not him.Oldbear83 said:
"Replaced with a vindictive, mob-boss persona caricature that is out for revenge."
Son, that is straight out of the WaPo. I also don't plan to vote for Trump in the 2024 primary, but that 'mob boss' crap is complete BS and you know it, or at least the adults do.
Of all the fallacies about Trump, the granddaddy of them all is that HE has seduced the electorate into populism. The reality is, Trump would not exist if populist sentiment had not taken over the party and much of the center. Social contract is not addressing the needs of ordinary people, and our leaders are virtue posturing over things that do not matter.
he is not the cause.
he is the symptom.
he is the redress of a long list of just grievances.
"Populism is a word you never hear unless societal elites have screwed up and are afraid of losing control."
--whiterock
If the Populist is "growing shoulders" and now including other voter populations, you may be right. Based on what we saw in 2020 and 2022, I fear the GOP is becoming more Populist, but the electorate as a whole still are not into personality politics, especially Trumps personality.
No question the GOP is transitioning to a populist party. Well documented. Past the halfway point....FLBear5630 said:You may be right. Populist are typically the fringes that either hate all Government or want extreme change.whiterock said:This is not the same electorate, either. Russia Hoax, 2020 election shenanigans, Covid, border chaos, crime in the streets, war in Ukraine, etc.... I mean, the list is quite long.FLBear5630 said:Have you listened to any of his rallies? This is not the same guy that came down the elevator. If it is Biden and Trump, I will vote Trump. While we are in the Primary mode and that decision is still open, I voice my opinions on the guy. I hope it is not him.Oldbear83 said:
"Replaced with a vindictive, mob-boss persona caricature that is out for revenge."
Son, that is straight out of the WaPo. I also don't plan to vote for Trump in the 2024 primary, but that 'mob boss' crap is complete BS and you know it, or at least the adults do.
Of all the fallacies about Trump, the granddaddy of them all is that HE has seduced the electorate into populism. The reality is, Trump would not exist if populist sentiment had not taken over the party and much of the center. Social contract is not addressing the needs of ordinary people, and our leaders are virtue posturing over things that do not matter.
he is not the cause.
he is the symptom.
he is the redress of a long list of just grievances.
"Populism is a word you never hear unless societal elites have screwed up and are afraid of losing control."
--whiterock
If the Populist is "growing shoulders" and now including other voter populations, you may be right. Based on what we saw in 2020 and 2022, I fear the GOP is becoming more Populist, but the electorate as a whole still are not into personality politics, especially Trumps personality.
Populism does not happen unless political leaders and societal institutions have lost touch. And boy have they. "Luxury beliefs" are driving the bus completely into the ditch
Media doesn't help. Let's face it, policy guys are not sexy or play well in the news cycles. Populists do. So, the appearance of a strong populist movement will be there well before the actual number get there, if ever. Politics has become a 30 second news slot, what can you get across in that timeframe.whiterock said:No question the GOP is transitioning to a populist party. Well documented. Past the halfway point....FLBear5630 said:You may be right. Populist are typically the fringes that either hate all Government or want extreme change.whiterock said:This is not the same electorate, either. Russia Hoax, 2020 election shenanigans, Covid, border chaos, crime in the streets, war in Ukraine, etc.... I mean, the list is quite long.FLBear5630 said:Have you listened to any of his rallies? This is not the same guy that came down the elevator. If it is Biden and Trump, I will vote Trump. While we are in the Primary mode and that decision is still open, I voice my opinions on the guy. I hope it is not him.Oldbear83 said:
"Replaced with a vindictive, mob-boss persona caricature that is out for revenge."
Son, that is straight out of the WaPo. I also don't plan to vote for Trump in the 2024 primary, but that 'mob boss' crap is complete BS and you know it, or at least the adults do.
Of all the fallacies about Trump, the granddaddy of them all is that HE has seduced the electorate into populism. The reality is, Trump would not exist if populist sentiment had not taken over the party and much of the center. Social contract is not addressing the needs of ordinary people, and our leaders are virtue posturing over things that do not matter.
he is not the cause.
he is the symptom.
he is the redress of a long list of just grievances.
"Populism is a word you never hear unless societal elites have screwed up and are afraid of losing control."
--whiterock
If the Populist is "growing shoulders" and now including other voter populations, you may be right. Based on what we saw in 2020 and 2022, I fear the GOP is becoming more Populist, but the electorate as a whole still are not into personality politics, especially Trumps personality.
Populism does not happen unless political leaders and societal institutions have lost touch. And boy have they. "Luxury beliefs" are driving the bus completely into the ditch
I think 2022 election showed it for the red wave that never came. The populists and the media made it look like it was inevitable because it fit the news cycle. I see that coming in the 2024 election, the populists, in this case Trump, will look strong early, until people actually have to vote. The complete opposite of 2016 where people were voting for Trump and not telling anyone. 2024 will be people talking Trump and then not voting for him. Just my feel for what I am seeing in the news and in the field.
nationally, there was a red wave.. the Dems fought back with targeted vote acquisition techniques.(legal or not is another debate)FLBear5630 said:Media doesn't help. Let's face it, policy guys are not sexy or play well in the news cycles. Populists do. So, the appearance of a strong populist movement will be there well before the actual number get there, if ever. Politics has become a 30 second news slot, what can you get across in that timeframe.whiterock said:No question the GOP is transitioning to a populist party. Well documented. Past the halfway point....FLBear5630 said:You may be right. Populist are typically the fringes that either hate all Government or want extreme change.whiterock said:This is not the same electorate, either. Russia Hoax, 2020 election shenanigans, Covid, border chaos, crime in the streets, war in Ukraine, etc.... I mean, the list is quite long.FLBear5630 said:Have you listened to any of his rallies? This is not the same guy that came down the elevator. If it is Biden and Trump, I will vote Trump. While we are in the Primary mode and that decision is still open, I voice my opinions on the guy. I hope it is not him.Oldbear83 said:
"Replaced with a vindictive, mob-boss persona caricature that is out for revenge."
Son, that is straight out of the WaPo. I also don't plan to vote for Trump in the 2024 primary, but that 'mob boss' crap is complete BS and you know it, or at least the adults do.
Of all the fallacies about Trump, the granddaddy of them all is that HE has seduced the electorate into populism. The reality is, Trump would not exist if populist sentiment had not taken over the party and much of the center. Social contract is not addressing the needs of ordinary people, and our leaders are virtue posturing over things that do not matter.
he is not the cause.
he is the symptom.
he is the redress of a long list of just grievances.
"Populism is a word you never hear unless societal elites have screwed up and are afraid of losing control."
--whiterock
If the Populist is "growing shoulders" and now including other voter populations, you may be right. Based on what we saw in 2020 and 2022, I fear the GOP is becoming more Populist, but the electorate as a whole still are not into personality politics, especially Trumps personality.
Populism does not happen unless political leaders and societal institutions have lost touch. And boy have they. "Luxury beliefs" are driving the bus completely into the ditch
I think 2022 election showed it for the red wave that never came. The populists and the media made it look like it was inevitable because it fit the news cycle. I see that coming in the 2024 election, the populists, in this case Trump, will look strong early, until people actually have to vote. The complete opposite of 2016 where people were voting for Trump and not telling anyone. 2024 will be people talking Trump and then not voting for him. Just my feel for what I am seeing in the news and in the field.
GOP actually won the "popular" vote total at mid terms, lost where it counted.
I doubt GOP has figured out how to fight back so expect more of the same in 2024.
“The Internet is just a world passing around notes in a classroom.”
Jon Stewart
Jon Stewart
You know the more I watch this playing out over a decade or so I have moved from believing that the Dems are cheating. But, the more I watch, I now have moved to that the Dems are better at politics.4th and Inches said:nationally, there was a red wave.. the Dems fought back with targeted vote acquisition techniques.(legal or not is another debate)FLBear5630 said:Media doesn't help. Let's face it, policy guys are not sexy or play well in the news cycles. Populists do. So, the appearance of a strong populist movement will be there well before the actual number get there, if ever. Politics has become a 30 second news slot, what can you get across in that timeframe.whiterock said:No question the GOP is transitioning to a populist party. Well documented. Past the halfway point....FLBear5630 said:You may be right. Populist are typically the fringes that either hate all Government or want extreme change.whiterock said:This is not the same electorate, either. Russia Hoax, 2020 election shenanigans, Covid, border chaos, crime in the streets, war in Ukraine, etc.... I mean, the list is quite long.FLBear5630 said:Have you listened to any of his rallies? This is not the same guy that came down the elevator. If it is Biden and Trump, I will vote Trump. While we are in the Primary mode and that decision is still open, I voice my opinions on the guy. I hope it is not him.Oldbear83 said:
"Replaced with a vindictive, mob-boss persona caricature that is out for revenge."
Son, that is straight out of the WaPo. I also don't plan to vote for Trump in the 2024 primary, but that 'mob boss' crap is complete BS and you know it, or at least the adults do.
Of all the fallacies about Trump, the granddaddy of them all is that HE has seduced the electorate into populism. The reality is, Trump would not exist if populist sentiment had not taken over the party and much of the center. Social contract is not addressing the needs of ordinary people, and our leaders are virtue posturing over things that do not matter.
he is not the cause.
he is the symptom.
he is the redress of a long list of just grievances.
"Populism is a word you never hear unless societal elites have screwed up and are afraid of losing control."
--whiterock
If the Populist is "growing shoulders" and now including other voter populations, you may be right. Based on what we saw in 2020 and 2022, I fear the GOP is becoming more Populist, but the electorate as a whole still are not into personality politics, especially Trumps personality.
Populism does not happen unless political leaders and societal institutions have lost touch. And boy have they. "Luxury beliefs" are driving the bus completely into the ditch
I think 2022 election showed it for the red wave that never came. The populists and the media made it look like it was inevitable because it fit the news cycle. I see that coming in the 2024 election, the populists, in this case Trump, will look strong early, until people actually have to vote. The complete opposite of 2016 where people were voting for Trump and not telling anyone. 2024 will be people talking Trump and then not voting for him. Just my feel for what I am seeing in the news and in the field.
GOP actually won the "popular" vote total at mid terms, lost where it counted.
I doubt GOP has figured out how to fight back so expect more of the same in 2024.
They use the same tactics that the Socialist/Communist use, they move as a block. They never break ranks and they are willing to fall in line even if they are not really for an initiative.
Same with Biden and crime. He is just better at it than Trump. After a year of investigating, they still don't have real evidence besides nickel and dime stuff on gun purchases and tax payments. Now I am hearing on Fox this morning, who does not love Joe, saying you are not going to find it as it is set up in layers without direct connections, it could take years to untangle. All the "circumstantial" stuff is there that makes you say this is not right, but they seemed very good at using position, accounting, and old fashioned NE organized crime methods to insulate. I know alot of people won't like this post, but I dont' think they are going to tie it together in a timeframe that matters.