13
elodrian 13 points ago +13 / -0

You got to dance with who brung you
Swing with who swung you
Don't be a fickle fool

Black voters did not support Trump in 2016. 10:1 they voted against him. Again in 2018. And again in 2020. Republicans in general, and Trump in particular, owe Black voters nothing.

The point of a democratic system is to build the smallest possible winning coalition. A 51% coalition is preferable to a 60% coalition because each member of the coalition gets a larger share of the spoils. Granting spoils to people who were not part of the coalition, and who are, in fact, your most active opposition, is a betrayal of the people who won you your office. Every day he spent pandering after Black votes was a day he was not working to benefit White, heartland America.

15
deleted 15 points ago +25 / -10
1
elodrian 1 point ago +1 / -0

The sensible solution to the gaming which goes on is for all county-level results to be submitted but kept sealed until such time as 100% of counts are complete, then the whole states reports the result of the election.

1
elodrian 1 point ago +1 / -0

It's a bad plan. The way forward is entryism. Flood the Republican party with patriots and systematically primary every elected representative, vote out every party leader, and fire every employee who has been with the organization since earlier than 2014. Clean house. Make Republicans Patriots Again.

1
elodrian 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yeah! Show that bot who's boss!

1
elodrian 1 point ago +1 / -0

I doubt this story. They weren't deciding the case based on the merits, they refused to consider the case. But there's no need for debate in that situation. All you need is four 'yes' votes and the case gets heard.

1
elodrian 1 point ago +1 / -0

The precedent being followed is the 1960 presidential election in Hawaii. On safe harbour day, the Republicans were the projected winners, they cast their electoral votes, they were signed and sealed by the governor. Because a recount was ongoing, Democrat electors also cast votes on that day. After the safe harbour day had passed, the recount determined that the Democrats had won. The governor signed and sealed the second slate of votes and sent them to the archivist in DC. On count day, VP Nixon had to decide which of the two slates to count.

The votes were cast so that, should court cases prove fraud carried the day for Biden, the governor/legislature still has the option of certifying the alternate slate. Without those votes being cast, all the ongoing lawsuits would be moot, because no relief would be possible beyond safe harbour day.

That's my understanding, at any rate. Not a lawyer, just a guy who reads stuff.

1
elodrian 1 point ago +1 / -0

As I understand it, unless the certificates from the electors are made official via a certificate bearing the seal of the state and the governor's signature, they're a hollow protest. Imagine if, constitutionally, the losing party in an election could unilaterally send alternative votes in and the reigning Vice President could choose which votes to count. There would never be another peaceful transition of power again. Constitutionally, selecting the electors is an authority granted to state legislatures, so at a minimum you would need to get the legislature on board. I don't believe that has happened yet in any of the dueling elector states.

1
elodrian 1 point ago +2 / -1

Ehn.... naw. This is the kind of "rent free in their heads" behaviour in which we laugh at liberals for engaging.

13
elodrian 13 points ago +13 / -0

Congrats! I'm sure MArius and GAbriel will grow up to be patriots.

1
elodrian 1 point ago +1 / -0

Frank Serpico. Jim Gordon. Those are the only ones who spring to mind.

by mmw_21
8
elodrian 8 points ago +8 / -0

He didn't know just like how we didn't know.

How many times was a photo of Judge Barrett posted with the caption "SOON" every time Ginsburg's health made the news? She was the heavy favourite of the T_D demographic.

1
elodrian 1 point ago +1 / -0

But if there are double slates of electors from various states then both could go over 270.

20
elodrian 20 points ago +20 / -0

Pence simply counting the Trump slates would remove two degrees of uncertainty from the process... would that be viewed as somehow less legitimate than punting the matter to a contingent election? Would anyone who matters care?

10
elodrian 10 points ago +10 / -0

Can the President fire his VP?

1
elodrian 1 point ago +1 / -0

What are the pre-requisites to sending a competing slate of electors? Like... could the California Republican Party direct their slate of electors to vote? Could the Texas Democrats? Doesn't the state legislature have to bless one slate or the other?

1
elodrian 1 point ago +1 / -0

Some people say that Pence chooses which electors to count. Other people say that they House and Senate have to vote to exclude state electoral votes. What is the process?

1
elodrian 1 point ago +1 / -0

Which slates of electors have the backing of the state legislatures?

12
elodrian 12 points ago +12 / -0

In 1789, Louis XVI locked the legislature out of their chambers, thinking that would stop them from convening. Turns out they could still convene in a nearby tennis court, which they did. Oaths were spoken and the killing began shortly thereafter.

2
elodrian 2 points ago +2 / -0

If the count ends up 274 to 278 (or whatever), wouldn't 278 be the winner?

10
elodrian 10 points ago +10 / -0

Fast might be better than slow, but winning slow is still better than losing fast.

2
elodrian 2 points ago +2 / -0

As is traditional, if the assembly is blocked from meeting in the state house by the executive, the meeting will be moved to the nearest indoor tennis court where business shall be conducted, oaths sworn, and a pike readied for the "head of state".

view more: ‹ Prev Next ›