I think you're the one uninformed about the law. But we'll have to agree to disagree. This discussion serves no purpose. Cheers.
Who cares? OP was appealing to business owners, not people who work for them.
Divert much?
It honestly just sounds like a business trying to capitalize on the massive influx of people to DC.
There will be a MASSIVE, orderly transfer of power.
Pence's power shall be removed. So shall Pelosi, Schumer and McConnell.
There will be a HUGE transfer of power this upcoming administration. Only the power will be transferred from Congress to the American people!
My way is the best way to weed out all libtard individuals while minimizing risk to the pro Trump company.
If you think you're going to get business owners to sacrifice their own means of survival because you want them to stop playing by the rules, you're clearly a naive person who knows nothing about business.
You are clearly unfamiliar with corporate litigation.
My way is much better cause it weeds out EVERY libtard. There's no way they can hide their contempt. You don't need to search for "obvious liberals" during your interview.
"We sell fax machines to Trump supporting conservatives and our uniforms and Trump enthusiast culture."
Having someone else "concede" for you would be a great way to get your enemies to let their guard down.
I don't think it's legal to hire based on political beliefs.
However, I think if a store owner was to impose uniforms for their employees that say "i LOVE TRUMP!!" i think that would be fine.
If the time comes when we are all sent to the gulag, I respectfully ask to be placed in the same cell as Norm Macdonald!
Some of these Legislators from Michigan have said that their hands are tied because they cannot go against the popular vote -- it is even codified in their State laws.
The legislatures are being shown tons of evidence that the tallies are not the correct popular vote. They are fraudulent. And if they don't decertify, that evidence that was shown to those corrupt legislators will be used as evidence in a military tribunal against those that unlawfully certified fraudulent data.
Before we continue, do YOU believe that the popular vote favored Biden in the contested states?
I have no idea what the court would rule cause they're corrupt as hell.
My guess is the court would try to abstain from getting involved, and would try to either just delay making a ruling until it was too late or just deny it for not having any standing.
My guess is it was a trick by Trump to test if Pence is loyal or not. I'm guessing Trump told Pence he wanted him to take this fight to prove he is committed to exercising his power, but Pence did not want to (for any number of reasons). I'm pretty sure this pissed off Trump who I think uses Lin as his chaotic MSM agitator to accuse him of being a traitor.
As for a reason why Pence would do this, here's one: The House chooses the President and the Senate chooses the VP if no candidate gets a majority of EC votes. If no President elect is "qualified" by Jan 20, the VP elect becomes president. What if there's a deal in place for Congress to qualify Pence for VP but not Trump for President before Jan 20? It could be a plan by DNC/GOP to get rid of Kamala AND Trump by putting Pence in charge if there's a secret, backroom deal. Right now the DNC is scared of Kamala coming in after Joe and bringing aboard the radicals and sacrificing the old DNC.
Also, I heard a rumor that Trump's plan may be to have Pence arrested, and put Pompeo in as VP and President of the Senate.
Trump's goal is to get state legislatures to decertify electors. And he's not doing it nicely. I'm sure he's threatening them with certifying a fraudulent election and military tribunals if they do not decertify.
And I don't know the deep down on Pence. Nobody does. Maybe not even Trump for sure.
The last sentence of your post is the case. Pence already tried to reject a lawsuit by Gohmert getting the court to agree that Pence isn't restricted by ECA. Pence asked to be dropped from the suit and this is why his credibility is being questioned by Lin Wood.
Also, a lot of it has to do with optics. Trump wants to win by exposing the truth and getting everybody to do the right thing. But if the corruption is so powerful that nothing can be done the lawful way (and Pence doing what I say he has the power to IS lawful), then I don't know what he'll do next. Right now, his focus is on getting the legislatures to decertify the electors and pick a new slate.
I only know I wouldn't want to be an evil globalist when he does what he's going to do ;)
There's nothing that prevents him from doing it. All this has happened before. Dual slates, Jefferson counting himself into the presidency. It's all been done and fought out in court and debated in Federalist papers. None of this is new.
Are we sure that these "alternate slates" are legal?
It doesn't matter if "we" are sure that they're legal. It only matters whether Pence thinks they're legal. He's the authority that chooses to accept them or not based on his determination of whether the Constitutional process has been followed or not.
This whole notion of "competing slates" is simply not allowed by ECA.
ECA is simply not allowed by the Constitution. It's irrelevant to me until you show me where the Constitution grants the Congress the right to legislate the counting of electoral votes (it DOESN'T). It vests the power of the opening and counting to a single authority.
Again, ECA is irrelevant. The courts have determined that the Congress does not set the rules regarding how the President of the Senate is to conduct the count.
Thanks Pede I'll check it out. Do you know where it's located? I'm hesitant to bet using sites that I don't know anything about.
So I see the discord here.
Biden does not have 270+ EC votes. Biden has 0 votes and Trump has 0 votes. Nobody has ANY votes until they are counted by Pence.
Pence has the authority to do what he wants. He can reject electors from disputed states, he can accept Trump electors where state legislatures have sent a dual slate, and he can accept Biden electors where slate legislatures have sent a dual slate. I wasn't arguing what he will do. I was arguing what his authority is.
If Pence gives Biden 271+ then it really doesn't matter what's in the ECA, because the Constitution would declare Biden the winner in this circumstance.
If Pence selects Trump electors in states with dual slates, then Trump wins by a landslide, and all objections by Congress can be ignored by Pence. Sure Congress might challenge this but court precedent and original federalist discussion favors Pence's right to be in complete control of the count. Again, House certification is irrelevant and Unconstitutional.
If Pence rejects all electors in dual slate states then it goes to an immediate vote of 50 states per the Constitution, irrelevant of what the ECA might say. The Constitution supersedes federal law. One vote per state, with a minimum of 1 representative from 2/3 of states to reach a quorum, and 26 state votes needed to declare a victor. If nobody is "qualified" by Jan 20, then the 20th Amendment rules go into effect.
The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote;
Which part of "the representation from each state having one vote" is unclear to you?
And what do you rely on when you assert that the vote "goes to the 435 member House and Senate for Certification."
Well, you're going to claim it was never shown to you. They're gonna claim you had to agree to the terms and conditions to place the bet and it was your obligation to know what was in it.
BTW, your best bet, IMHO, is to argue that the "title" of the bet was written in such a way as to be intentionally deceitful as to what you were betting on.
I wish you the best of luck!
Sorry I thought you were replying to a different thread of mine.
It only matters what's in the terms and conditions, and what you can convince a judge or jury you thought you were agreeing to.
Those two things are what will be pitted against each other in a courtroom. OP posted that his terms and conditions mentioned "projected elector winners" probably as determined by the Jan 6 vote. If that's in the terms and conditions, then it only matters if he can convince a judge that he was deceived into thinking the bet was on who would become president.
Probably because they're all closed so they don't need to show you the terms anymore. But of the 3 or so sites I checked when the bets were open, you had to agree to the terms, which I read and rejected.
The bottom line is that most likely the only chance you will have to collect is to file either an individual lawsuit or join a class action and claim that you were deceived as to what you were betting on.
It's clear that VP has the authority to do it. Any federal laws that require the President of the Senate to do anything are Unconstitutional. Congress are merely spectators in the opening and counting as determined previously by courts. The Constitution makes the President of the Senate the sole authority who opens and counts the slate of electors from each state. Period! This cannot be overturned by federal statute.
Contingent Election is one vote per state delegate, not per representative, so it's not 435 individual house votes. Representatives from each state will vote for a delegate who gets one vote, so 50 total votes. A majority of all states (26) is required to qualify the President elect.
If no candidate receives a majority of the states then no candidate is qualified. There is a Constitutional procedure in place if no candidate is qualified by Jan 20.
Thanks for clarifying. When I blew up the photo it definitely did not look like the communist symbol.