Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Iduno]

https://twitter.com/iamTannenbaum/status/1308484742489276417

[NJW2000]

https://twitter.com/iamTannenbaum/status/1308484742489276417

Your PPE funds get spent on the defense budget? Lucky americans. In the UK, they just get funneled into investment firms and confectioners.

[ZBridges]

Reportedly, "the Trump campaign is discussing contingency plans to bypass election results and appoint loyal electors in battleground states where Republicans hold the legislative majority."

"With a justification based on claims of rampant fraud, Trump would ask state legislators to set aside the popular vote and exercise their power to choose a slate of electors directly."

Source: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/11/what-if-trump-refuses-concede/616424/

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I have the utmost confidence in our courts to stop the vote counting at an appropriate and patriotic time. 

[Egan_BW]

very democracy

[MrRoboto75]

https://twitter.com/iamTannenbaum/status/1308484742489276417

Your PPE funds get spent on the defense budget? Lucky americans. In the UK, they just get funneled into investment firms and confectioners.

you do realize most of that defense budget does go to stock owned corps for weapons development and production and not grunt boots on the ground.

[NJW2000]

https://twitter.com/iamTannenbaum/status/1308484742489276417

Your PPE funds get spent on the defense budget? Lucky americans. In the UK, they just get funneled into investment firms and confectioners.

you do realize most of that defense budget does go to stock owned corps for weapons development and production and not grunt boots on the ground.

Yeah naturally, I was just joking about different approaches to spending money intended for PPE.

Source: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/11/what-if-trump-refuses-concede/616424/

Also, a tl;dr of this article: unless Trump wins by a landslide (unlikely) he will use various legal and illegal tactics to obscure the actual outcome of the voting and muddy the waters, while maintaining his narrative that the election was fixed. If the final voting totals don't reflect a positive result for him, or if counts or the legal battles around them drag on past a certain date, he then appeals to the states to send favourable electors. The extent to which these electors are willing to ignore the vote count then becomes key, but it is very likely that several states will send more than one set of electors, casting more than one set of ballots for different sides.

If either party takes both the house and the senate, they probably win in this situation. If the house and the senate are split between them, we're not sure what happens, but it will depend on what Trump is willing to do to stay in power, to the point of declaring martial law. After that, I'd imagine it comes down to the generals, and I'm not sure how that would go.

This is on the assumption that Trump wants to win and will do almost anything to stay in power. His campaign is certainly taking this attitude. His "the election will be fixed" tweets seem to indicate that he is too, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility that he tries to do some kind of deal to avoid legal repurcussions, and is willing to take the money and run. I don't know if President is a particularly enviable job at the moment, particularly for someone of his intelligence, so he may be getting tired of it. Hard to say.

[Maximum Spin]

Reportedly, "the Trump campaign is discussing contingency plans to bypass election results and appoint loyal electors in battleground states where Republicans hold the legislative majority."

"With a justification based on claims of rampant fraud, Trump would ask state legislators to set aside the popular vote and exercise their power to choose a slate of electors directly."

Source: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/11/what-if-trump-refuses-concede/616424/

To be totally clear, this is constitutional and there doesn't even need to be a justification. State legislatures are allowed to determine the method of choosing an elector freely.

[Starver]

"...unless it involves mailing in!!!"

[Maximum Spin]

"...unless it involves mailing in!!!"

That's not a method of choosing an elector, that's a method of performing a poll.

[Frumple]

Reportedly, "the Trump campaign is discussing contingency plans to bypass election results and appoint loyal electors in battleground states where Republicans hold the legislative majority."

"With a justification based on claims of rampant fraud, Trump would ask state legislators to set aside the popular vote and exercise their power to choose a slate of electors directly."

Source: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/11/what-if-trump-refuses-concede/616424/

To be totally clear, this is constitutional and there doesn't even need to be a justification. State legislatures are allowed to determine the method of choosing an elector freely.

To be totally clearer, this statement is pretty much entirely false. What's being described by the shitgibbon and co. largely violates the state constitutions or laws in most or all of potentially contested areas. State legislatures cannot actually just rewrite their own constitutions and legal code at a whim, which is what it would take for the situation in question to actually occur.

[Maximum Spin]

To be totally clearer, this statement is pretty much entirely false. What's being described by the shitgibbon and co. largely violates the state constitutions or laws in most or all of potentially contested areas. State legislatures cannot actually just rewrite their own constitutions and legal code at a whim, which is what it would take for the situation in question to actually occur.

Well, they can. Then they would get sued, it would go through the state courts, then get appealed to the Supreme Court, who would then get to decide whether they can or not...

I'm sure the Supreme Court will totally make the right, nonpolitical call!

[delphonso]

I'm starting to think the constitution might have some faults in it.

[feelotraveller]

Surely it enshrines the best democracy money can buy.

[Rolan7]

Strict adherence to the Constitution, or the will of the Framers is so weird to me.  Everyone knows they had slaves, but not everyone remembers that only landowners could vote back then.  The supposed balance of the three branches only ever worked by trading favors, collusion, and by taboos against actually using the "checks" like the veto. 

The only redeeming value of the US Constitution is its malleability, as shown by the Bill of Rights and (most of) the following Amendments.  So this nigh-fundamentalist idea of trying to enforce the original intentions of its authors seems... misguided.  Often it seems like a convenient excuse, and at least that makes sense.