Would be really funny if someone spilled grease all over that the floor.

I think resolution of the vote count basically falls on Pence. But I have no idea what happens if a senator or rep objects.

Isn't the contestation the fact that dueling electors were sent? (I don't know...)

It's because the Constitition, for better or worse, isn't written like a technical manual. There's actually a lot of ambiguity and room for argument.

Personally, I think the framers just didn't think humanity was capable of the levels of bullshit we see now. Also dueling was a thing back then, do I think a lot of bullshit got called put before it became a problem.

Could you imagine a pistol duel between Pelosi and Trump?

I'm of the opinion that the definition of majority in this case is unclear, so it's anyone's guess. But to answer your question, I would think the majority is determined by the total of electoral votes available.

In the 13 colonies, they'd use the majority of however many electoral votes existed at that time.

It's expected for a quickly mutating virus to show slight genomic variations in different sample strains though. If you sequence humans, their DNA wouldn't exactly match either.

This is also what George Washington was known to actually do during the Revolutionary War. Same heroism, different battlefield. Both legendary Americans.

What are you saying here? It's a bit unclear.

ScoloCZ says that there sequences available with novel, or at least unusual , genomes. I've looked at these sequences myself and agree with that conclusion.

Are you saying that these sequences are fabricated as your legacy output proves otherwise? Or are you saying that the published COVID sequences are legit, but the conclusion that they are novel is incorrect?

If your legacy output shows a different sequence though, wouldn't that by definition make the sample "not COVID"?

Not arguing, just trying to understand what you're saying.

Psychiatry has similar roots as Marxism. They go hand in hand.

Ah, the "I can spell so much better than you therefore you are invalid" argument. These are the people that got by beat up on the playground, aren't they?

I agree that "majority" can be interpreted either way, but if you think about an extreme case where all electors except for those of two states were thrown out due to disputes, it wouldn't make a lot of sense to have the electors of just those two states deciding everything.

Not that anything is following any kind of sense in 2020.

Constitutional lawyers probably know as much about the Constitution as constitutional judges.

Based on that, I'd say nobody knows what the hell is going on.

I see this stuff mentioned sometimes, and I've ended up reading about the process

I believe that even if electoral votes are thrown out, a candidate still needs the 270 majority, i.e. you don't readjust the majority threshold; just nobody gets those dead votes.

This suggests that if Pence does throw out contested electors, the lack of majority will kick the decision to the House where each state gets exactly one vote (and non-state DC doesn't have a say).

That's good because Trump has the definitie advantage in a one-to-one state vote.

I recall that the Dems could possibly pull some additional bullshit at that stage, but my memory's fuzzy on that.

Commies wake people up because they want to use them to attack the existing socio-political power structure. Once the commies get in control, they then switch their game to keeping you in a trance.

Prime example is The Daily Show.

Yup. Carlin was a great performer, but if you really look at what he's saying and how he's saying it, he was just a disgruntled left-tard who made a living off of endlessly complaining about things he never lifted a finger to change. Typical ultra-liberal behavior.

Those are feminized males, an unfortunate modern phenomenon.

Voting is about statistics, i.e. finding the patterns in the group.

The female decision making process is based on safety and emotion for very good reasons. It allows them to create a safe and happy family unit. This is a biological and statistical fact.

This type of decision making is not suitable for dealing with the external world where everything is trying to eat you alive. That's why men make information based decisions.

By having women vote alongside men, the emotional vote now has a numerical advantage to the information based vote.

Sometimes that emotion swings in the right direction, but it can very easily be mislead.

Call me sexist, but I think most men dislike telling other people what to do because men typically just want to be left alone themselves.

Women and mask faggots, on the other hand, love bossing others around probably due to the command inferiority they experience in all other aspects of their lives.

Why are libs always telling other people what to do?

Martial law means that domestic civil law and rights are suspended and "war rules" go into effect. You would need this if you wanted to take extrajudicial action against American citizens.

If the traitors are declared enemy combatants though, then you wouldn't need to suspended civil law to enact military arrests.

Military route is still in play, martial law or not.

This is the way they're sideloading a perpetual lockdown state.

1. Establish you need a new flu vaccine every year because the flu mutates.

2. Establish belief in a virus that requires lockdowns.

3. Establish that the lockdown virus mutates yearly just like the flu.

Result: Lockdowns and vaccines every year forever.

The actual government having a meeting in a government facility to discuss overthrowing the government? That's a new one.

Anybody remember the first season of "Survivor"? There was that one contestant, Richard, who gamed everyone on the island and won the season. It was great, and while he came across as a dick, you still had to respect him because he played the game so perfectly.

Imo, all the following seasons paled in comparison because now that everyone knew his strategy, everyone was trying to be Richard 2.0. But they didn't have the cunning or the guile. They were just imitating what they saw worked.

I'm afraid this principle will come into play in the post-Trump era. But of course, anything can happen.

I was primarily just curious about the data myself since I didn't know who to believe. Now I know, so the battle's already won.

Go grab yourself a cocoa. Thing's will be OK.

I'm not saying they couldn't do that, but there's a paper trail of death certificates that runs through various agencies, and it's a non-subjective stat unlike "COVID-related deaths".

So maybe they are lying about the whole thing, but I still want to look at the data that's on file to see what it says in case it's somewhat accurate.