One-way politics

[Hodad]

25 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

I didn't say the VP can pick a winner. Nice try. The 1887 Electoral Count Act does provide provision for an election that is in dispute.

The results could have been sent to the houses where they'd have had 2 hours to debate separately. Then rejoin and vote jointly on the objection.

When you make stupid claims, you re-affirm that you Libbies will do and say anything to achieve your goals. That's why people don't trust you and why most people don't trust Biden. 

The election was NOT in dispute, you kook. All the states certified. So the ONLY option--and the point of Eastman's coup memo--was that Pence (and by extension and VP) could simply pick and choose which certified votes to accept, throwing out enough states to declare Trump the winner. That was what they attempted to do--to literally throw away certified electoral votes until their guy won. The "contingent election" was plan B.

[Nationalist]

7 minutes ago, Hodad said:

The election was NOT in dispute, you kook. All the states certified. So the ONLY option--and the point of Eastman's coup memo--was that Pence (and by extension and VP) could simply pick and choose which certified votes to accept, throwing out enough states to declare Trump the winner. That was what they attempted to do--to literally throw away certified electoral votes until their guy won. The "contingent election" was plan B.

You said

Quote

There is not and never has been a mechanism by which the a Vice President simply chooses a winner or chooses not to count state certified votes.

I showed you there is a provision to have the votes reviewed by both houses.

Sorry but your screaming and misdirection have not worked.

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

The election was NOT in dispute, you kook.

100% wrong.

If you want to be accurate then you need to say "No one found definitive proof that the Dems cheated with the actual number of ballots tallied, although their extensive history of election cheating, falsely challenging fair elections, their dedication to fraud-friendly voting reforms, plus the FBI's history of lies, crimes & cheating to influence elections on behalf of the Dems, mean that you'd have to be a fool to think that the Dems didn't cheat on the 2020 election. The proof just wasn't found in ballot boxes.

In actual fact, the FBI's lies about Hunter's laptop does amount election cheating, but recalling the entire election for that would be too much. 

We just have to consider the FBI an entirely corrupt/realistically criminal organization from here on out and move on.

Quote

All the states certified.

Yes they did. The US has no choice but to move fwd with their hateful, divisive, at-best-worthless president. 

Edited September 14, 2023 by WestCanMan

[impartialobserver]

Another reason that we do not have impactful third parties in the USA is that folks take probability of winning into account before the actual policies or characteristics of the candidate. To like a candidate but have them lose is pointless according to most. 

[Hodad]

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

You said

I showed you there is a provision to have the votes reviewed by both houses.

Sorry but your screaming and misdirection have not worked.

What Trump tried as a primary plan -- and the actions you defend and support--have nothing to do with a contingent election. They simply wanted Pence to discard the inconvenient votes so that Trump could be declared the winner. 

What you're proposing is that, (prior to the legal clarification) regardless of the outcome of the election it would be cool for Kamala Harris to simply reject the votes from Florida and Texas --and whatever other states necessary--to secure a Biden win. 

You literally think that was a legal option in the United states for 250 years? ? GTFO.

 

Edited September 14, 2023 by Hodad

[Rebound]

3 hours ago, Nationalist said:

You said

I showed you there is a provision to have the votes reviewed by both houses.

Sorry but your screaming and misdirection have not worked.

Yes, you are absolutely correct, in your imagination. 
But the wicked, evil vile leftist Marxist “Federal Law” does not agree. In fact, it is the very first thing stated in the Congressional Electors Act (3 US 15):

Powers of the President of Senate.—

(1)Ministerial in nature.—

Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, the role of the President of the Senate while presiding over the joint session shall be limited to performing solely ministerial duties.

(2)Powers explicitly denied.—

The President of the Senate shall have no power to solely determine, accept, reject, or otherwise adjudicate or resolve disputes over the proper certificate of ascertainment of appointment of electors, the validity of electors, or the votes of electors.

 

The Act then states:

Grounds for objections.—The only grounds for objections shall be as follows:

(I)

The electors of the State were not lawfully certified under a certificate of ascertainment of appointment of electors according to section 5(a)(1).

(II)

The vote of one or more electors has not been regularly given.

Edited September 14, 2023 by Rebound

[Nationalist]

18 minutes ago, Hodad said:

What Trump tried as a primary plan -- and the actions you defend and support--have nothing to do with a contingent election. They simply wanted Pence to discard the inconvenient votes so that Trump could be declared the winner. 

What you're proposing is that, (prior to the legal clarification) regardless of the outcome of the election it would be cool for Kamala Harris to simply reject the votes from Florida and Texas --and whatever other states necessary--to secure a Biden win. 

You literally think that was a legal option in the United states for 250 years? ? GTFO.

 

You said there was no law allowing for the votes to be reviewed and questioned.

I showed you that you were wrong...yet again.

Deal with it.

8 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Yes, you are absolutely correct, in your imagination. 
But the wicked, evil vile leftist Marxist “Federal Law” does not agree. In fact, it is the very first thing stated in the Congressional Electors Act (3 US 15):

Powers of the President of Senate.—

(1)Ministerial in nature.—

Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, the role of the President of the Senate while presiding over the joint session shall be limited to performing solely ministerial duties.

(2)Powers explicitly denied.—

The President of the Senate shall have no power to solely determine, accept, reject, or otherwise adjudicate or resolve disputes over the proper certificate of ascertainment of appointment of electors, the validity of electors, or the votes of electors.

 

The Act then states:

Grounds for objections.—The only grounds for objections shall be as follows:

(I)

The electors of the State were not lawfully certified under a certificate of ascertainment of appointment of electors according to section 5(a)(1).

(II)

The vote of one or more electors has not been regularly given.

Dude...you're just making yourself look even dumber that normal.

The provision exists.!

[Hodad]

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

You said there was no law allowing for the votes to be reviewed and questioned.

I showed you that you were wrong...yet again.

Deal with it.

 

Bullshit. There is no legal provision for what Trump tried to do. Even the jackass who wrote the coup memo admitted it was illegal. 

It's obviously immoral on every level, it's obviously illegal. The fact that you think it's hunky dory is purely down to your unwavering commitment to Dear Leader--no matter how outrageous his lies and betrayals.

 

[Hodad]

4 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

100% wrong.

If you want to be accurate then you need to say "No one found definitive proof that the Dems cheated with the actual number of ballots tallied, although their extensive history of election cheating, falsely challenging fair elections, their dedication to fraud-friendly voting reforms, plus the FBI's history of lies, crimes & cheating to influence elections on behalf of the Dems, mean that you'd have to be a fool to think that the Dems didn't cheat on the 2020 election. The proof just wasn't found in ballot boxes.

In actual fact, the FBI's lies about Hunter's laptop does amount election cheating, but recalling the entire election for that would be too much. 

We just have to consider the FBI an entirely corrupt/realistically criminal organization from here on out and move on.

 

You live in the weirdest bubble, entirely detached from reality. 

Not only was there no "definitive proof" there was no evidence whatsoever. Nor is there any evidence that the Democrats have ever committed election fraud at scale. Sure, some random losers from either party occasionally, but there never been evidence of large-scale cheating from any party in modern times. The Republicans much prefer legalized voter suppression. 

If you want to fantasize about Trump's FBI lying about Hunter's laptop to help Joe Biden, you enjoy the ride. It's nonsense, but that doesn't seem to bother you. 

And no, one would have to be a fool to believe that an utterly massive conspiracy took place under the most intense scrutiny of any US election in history, and still was sooooooooo brilliant and airtight that nobody could detect the fraud.?

Trump, the compulsive liar, told you that the only way he could lose was if someone cheated. And, despite being tremendously divisive, unpopular and unsuccessful, with poor approval ratings and trailing in the polls, that sounded reasonable to you. ?

 

Quote

Yes they did. The US has no choice but to move fwd with their hateful, divisive, at-best-worthless president. 

^^ This is very interesting though. It sounds almost like you acknowledge that what Trump tried to pull off with the Eastman coup was illegal and immoral. And, one would assume, wholly disqualifying even for the most fervent Trumpistas. I mean, if you don't approve of people stealing elections, surely the one person (along with his cronies) who very clearly and with ample evidence tried to steal an election should be repulsive to you. 

Or perhaps like your allies here you simply don't care at all about frivolous concepts like democracy and the rule of law. 

Edited September 14, 2023 by Hodad

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

Bullshit. There is no legal provision for what Trump tried to do. Even the jackass who wrote the coup memo admitted it was illegal. 

It's obviously immoral on every level, it's obviously illegal. The fact that you think it's hunky dory is purely down to your unwavering commitment to Dear Leader--no matter how outrageous his lies and betrayals.

 

Blah blah...woof woof.

You were wrong. Be a man and admit it.

[robosmith]

6 hours ago, Nationalist said:

You said

I showed you there is a provision to have the votes reviewed by both houses.

Sorry but your screaming and misdirection have not worked.

Not by falsely rejecting CERTIFIED VOTE COUNTS. The VP DOES NOT have that AUTHORITY as Pence STATED. Duh

Are you calling Mike Pence a LIAR? LMAO

[Nationalist]

Just now, robosmith said:

Not by falsely rejecting CERTIFIED VOTE COUNTS. The VP DOES NOT have that AUTHORITY as Pence STATED. Duh

Are you calling Mike Pence a LIAR? LMAO

No. I'm saying there exists a provision for re-examination of the electors and their results.

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

Blah blah...woof woof.

You were wrong. Be a man and admit it.

I clicked the laugh icon on that one as well, 'cause you were clearly joking when you said that they should finally admit to something, right? 

This is what a leftard says when he's completely busted:

Quote

He explained that he was staying off of the road so that he wouldn't get in the way of evacuations and that the camera crews had to stand on the road so that the equipment wouldn't get wet.

Hmmm, but the camera crews were already on the road, "blocking evacuations", so couldn't he just stand in the same lane, 20' away? No? ?

Leftards are vile. 

Edited September 14, 2023 by WestCanMan