pinklady
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,529
Nov 14, 2016 23:47:03 GMT
|
Post by pinklady on Nov 12, 2020 23:47:06 GMT
Apparently Melanoma conceded for trump.
|
|
|
Post by crazy4scraps on Nov 13, 2020 1:07:48 GMT
Apparently Melanoma conceded for trump. Maybe, maybe not. It might just mean she’s finally planning on filing for divorce so it will be HER last year of putting up “those &$#*@ Christmas decorations” LOL.
|
|
pudgygroundhog
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,643
Location: The Grand Canyon
Jun 25, 2014 20:18:39 GMT
|
Post by pudgygroundhog on Nov 13, 2020 3:03:35 GMT
I waffle between anxiety and just ignoring him. I think he's keeping this up to collect more money from his cultists. They think they are funding a recount, but they are really just paying down his election debt and filling his coffers (which he greatly needs with notes for debt coming due).
Even his lawyers in the court cases are saying there is no evidence of fraud. I think when push came to shove, they realized they were risking their licenses and careers by lying for him and refused to do so under oath.
What I am concerned about is the damage he has done to our democracy and country. He has set dangerous precedents and I hope we can recover. He has stoked violence and I'm seeing many Facebook posts of people who just seem to be chomping at the bit for a war.
I will never, ever again take for granted democracy in this country or look at other countries and feel grateful we haven't lived through a coup or a wanna be dictator/warlord.
ETA: It sounds like he's trying to raise money and fire up his supporters for a 2024 campaign and/or a network to rival Fox. I wish I could laugh at a 2024 campaign, but after the last four years I can't afford to laugh anything off.
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Nov 13, 2020 4:03:27 GMT
I waffle between anxiety and just ignoring him. I think he's keeping this up to collect more money from his cultists. They think they are funding a recount, but they are really just paying down his election debt and filling his coffers (which he greatly needs with notes for debt coming due). Even his lawyers in the court cases are saying there is no evidence of fraud. I think when push came to shove, they realized they were risking their licenses and careers by lying for him and refused to do so under oath. What I am concerned about is the damage he has done to our democracy and country. He has set dangerous precedents and I hope we can recover. He has stoked violence and I'm seeing many Facebook posts of people who just seem to be chomping at the bit for a war. I will never, ever again take for granted democracy in this country or look at other countries and feel grateful we haven't lived through a coup or a wanna be dictator/warlord. ETA: It sounds like he's trying to raise money and fire up his supporters for a 2024 campaign and/or a network to rival Fox. I wish I could laugh at a 2024 campaign, but after the last four years I can't afford to laugh anything off. I agree. I think it's about the money. They are squeezing every last dime out of their supporters pretending it's going for a recount when in reality it's going to a PAC. And then I see what's going on at the Department of Defense.... www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-fundraising-insigh/donations-under-8k-to-trump-election-defense-instead-go-to-president-rnc-idUSKBN27R309
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Nov 13, 2020 16:07:52 GMT
Where are our law experts? We need them to enter this thread & talk us off the ledge with soothing info about the 20th Amendment. I wish there was something I could say to alleviate the worry. A lot of opinion writers are saying this scenario is unlikely and farfetched, but in my opinion (just my opinion, that’s all) the fact that this is even possible is a legitimate concern. At issue here is the states’ legislatures. --Although there are 32 states that have laws preventing electors from voting against the state’s popular vote, state legislatures have the power to appoint their slate of electors to begin with. But, if a state legislature appoints Trump electors even when the state went for Biden, the governor can veto that move. Will a GOP governor in a red state do that? I can’t say. (To-date, only PA has said they will not go against the popular vote in their state.) --There is nothing in our Constitution that mandates the appointment of electors based on the popular vote. --The SC has also ruled against this but we also have a different SC now. It's concerning that Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are saying " state legislatures — not federal judges, not state judges, not state governors, not other state officials — bear primary responsibility for setting election rules.” --Congress has the ultimate power on Jan 6 to decline electors but that decision rests both in a House with Dem majority and a Senate with a possible GOP majority (the new Congress is seated by then so if we don’t win the GA runoff, we’d still be the Senate minority). What could be expected from that when the GOP (like Lindsey Graham) is actually supporting Trump in his baseless charges? What could be expected when some like Graham are saying "everything should be on the table," or influential allies like Mark Levine are saying "state legislatures should step up"? From Vox (bolding mine): Wisconsin state Rep. Joe Sanfelippo (R), has already endorsed this idea. “You either have to toss this election out and have a whole new election, or we have our delegates to the Electoral College vote for the person they think legitimately should have won. It's really almost impossible to predict what would happen. --I checked all the statutes in our federal code (Title 3) that can be specifically applied against a state legislature going rogue in choosing the slate of electors, something that will definitively prevent this from happening to begin with, and I cannot find any. --But for a state to do this would also be Due Process and Equal Protection violations. If a state legislature goes against the popular vote in that state, I would expect immediate lawsuits based on that. (All election disputes must be resolved by the states and electors appointed no later than Dec 8.) I said on another thread many days ago that major aspects of our electoral system are based on honor and that's a serious weakness. Because when you have an incumbent and his party that are not honorable, the system is thrown into major conflict and disarray. The term "constitutional crisis" is often misused nowadays, but this scenario will really be a bona fide constitutional crisis. All that said, it might very well be unlikely because it's difficult to imagine any state would willingly disenfranchise its own majority electorate because the blowback will be severe, and I cannot see Biden voters just taking that in the chin. Add to that the fact that there are some states that have laws against this. I think that's about all I can say that's remotely positive.
|
|
|
Post by Gem Girl on Nov 13, 2020 19:48:01 GMT
|
|