Trump's Coup d'état.

[slyjoe]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Oh right. This is one thing that women have a bit of an advantage on. Many of us can just have another!

[Brainster]

Eventually I suppose we can hope that this thread will be moved to conspiracy theories, even if the mainstream media seems to be promoting it currently. I read the conservative blogs and virtually all of them are saying it looks like Biden won, it's okay for Trump to let the process continue, but come January 20 we will have a new President. Nobody is suggesting that Trump should get the state legislatures to name their own slate of electors (well, maybe Gateway Pundit is, but I gave Hoeft up as an idiot years ago).

[slyjoe]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Eventually I suppose we can hope that this thread will be moved to conspiracy theories, even if the mainstream media seems to be promoting it currently. I read the conservative blogs and virtually all of them are saying it looks like Biden won, it's okay for Trump to let the process continue, but come January 20 we will have a new President. Nobody is suggesting that Trump should get the state legislatures to name their own slate of electors (well, maybe Gateway Pundit is, but I gave Hoeft up as an idiot years ago).

Trump is actively working against the transition process by not admitting defeat.

[eerok]

Originally Posted by slyjoe

Trump is actively working against the transition process by not admitting defeat.

He's making history, one ill-considered travesty at a time.

That's all he was ever good for.

[Cavemonster]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Eventually I suppose we can hope that this thread will be moved to conspiracy theories, even if the mainstream media seems to be promoting it currently. I read the conservative blogs and virtually all of them are saying it looks like Biden won, it's okay for Trump to let the process continue, but come January 20 we will have a new President. Nobody is suggesting that Trump should get the state legislatures to name their own slate of electors (well, maybe Gateway Pundit is, but I gave Hoeft up as an idiot years ago).

Trump Tweeted:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...07964404260870

Quote:

700,000 ballots were not allowed to be viewed in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh which means, based on our great Constitution, we win the State of Pennsylvania!

EDIT: Just to be clear, this is not "the process" by any sane definition.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Eventually I suppose we can hope that this thread will be moved to conspiracy theories, even if the mainstream media seems to be promoting it currently. I read the conservative blogs and virtually all of them are saying it looks like Biden won, it's okay for Trump to let the process continue, but come January 20 we will have a new President. Nobody is suggesting that Trump should get the state legislatures to name their own slate of electors (well, maybe Gateway Pundit is, but I gave Hoeft up as an idiot years ago).

What blogs? These blogs speak more to mainstream conservatism than, say, Sean Hannity? Mark Levine?

I poked my head into National Review's blog. There was a posting about a podcast by The Editors about Biden's win. It garnered over 700 comments (which is much higher than usual), most of them upset that NR was run by sell-outs.

The thing about the conservative press is that many of the mouthpieces are afraid of their audience.

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

I've spent a little energy trying to envision how the Trumpers think they can pull this off. From what I can tell—after sitting through the infamous Four Seasons press briefing—the plan is to overturn the results in GA with a hand recount and then overturn PA & MI by somehow getting the courts to declare tens of thousands of votes invalid in major metropolitan centers such as Philly and Detroit.

ETA: If you want "disaster porn" just imagine how the residents of those cities would respond to judicial disfranchisement overturning the statewide result.

Operation Death Blossum?

[Modified]

The votes they could possibly invalidate wouldn't all be Biden votes though. What was the typical ratio of mail-ins, two to one or something? So to gain 100,000 votes they'd need 300,000 invalidated.

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Oddly enough, there are over 300K mail in ballots in the USPS system that were never scanned as delivered.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

They said that the plan is to delay official certification, at least until they can find out where all those pesky Biden ballots came from and the perhaps throw some of them out.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

That's a link to a search string.

Quote something supporting your claim.

Honestly, I'm not sure why you are standing on this hill.

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by Modified

The votes they could possibly invalidate wouldn't all be Biden votes though. What was the typical ratio of mail-ins, two to one or something? So to gain 100,000 votes they'd need 300,000 invalidated.

No court would ever invalidate 700000 votes. At worst, they would require that they be recounted.

[Craig4]

Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY

Oddly enough, there are over 300K mail in ballots in the USPS system that were never scanned as delivered.

I'll care when I hear it from an American source.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by cosmicaug

Sorry. I was responding to a post referring to faithless electors (which I assume refers to already appointed electors choosing to change their vote) which made my response confusing since that is not what I was trying to address. I meant to address the notion of a state legislative body replacing electors with their own choice and that is what the article I linked to was referring to (which is clear in what I quoted).

We have a politician saying that the legislature would not have such a role under "normal circumstances". This implies that this legislator thinks that the legislature could actually have such a role in some circumstances (just not normal ones). That does not mean that everyone thinks this but at least some Republican legislators in PA seem to think this.

When there were a couple faithless electors a decade+ ago they cast their votes for Sanders instead of Clinton.

I don't know if there have been any faithless electors that voted for the other party's candidate.

I already posted a number of times (in other threads and this one) challenging the legislators going against their state's popular vote. There have been articles (selling scare mongering, IMO) but there hasn't been any evidence presented that goes beyond the hypothesis. It could happen. I could join the next X-rocket to the ISS. Doesn't mean there's a chance in Sagan's Garage it would happen.

[DevilsAdvocate]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Hmmm...I wish that were true.

2016	2020
62,984,828	72,349,962 (and counting...)

In 2016 there were 135,719,982 total votes. In 2020 there were 153,470,021. That is an increase of about 13%.

Also Libertarian candidate Johnson got a much higher percentage of the vote in 2016 than Jorgensen in 2020.

We can adjust the 2016 percentages to account for those changes and then do a comparison.

In 2016 Trump got 46.4%, Clinton 48.5%, Libertarian 3.3%, Green 1.1% and Other 0.6%.

In 2020 Trump got 47.4%, Biden 50.9%, Libertarian 1.2%, Green 0.2% and Other 0.3% (based on current counts).

We can adjust the 2016 percentages by giving Trump the difference in Libertarian votes and Clinton the difference in Green votes.

Trump gets 46.4% + 3.3% - 1.2% = 48.5%
Clinton gets 48.5% + 1.1% - 0.2% = 49.3%

That would mean from 2016 to 2020 we would have Trump going from 48.5% to 47.4% for a loss of 1.1%.

Clinton/Biden goes from 49.3% to 50.9% for a gain of 1.5%.

The Other category has a loss of 0.4%. Those candidates were Constitutional Party and a conservative Independent. So we could count that loss against Trump for a total loss of 1.5%.

The gives us Trump down 1.5% and Democrats up 1.5%. At least somewhere in the 1.0% to 1.5% range. Not a big change either way.

(Jorgensen got enough votes that if even about 70% of those had gone toward Trump he would have won.)

[slyjoe]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

That's a link to a search string.

Quote something supporting your claim.

Honestly, I'm not sure why you are standing on this hill.

I think the applicable phrase is "...dying on this hill."

[DevilsAdvocate]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I don't know if there have been any faithless electors that voted for the other party's candidate.

For President, only Samuel Miles in 1796. At that time electors cast two votes for President and the person with the most votes (over a majority) became President and the second-place finisher became Vice-President.

Miles was pledged to to Federalists John Adams and Thomas Pinckney, but he cast his vote for Democratic-Republican Thomas Jefferson and Pinckney. Adams won by two electoral votes, so it didn't end up mattering. Miles went on to run successfully for Congress as a Democratic-Republican.

Miles voting for Pinckney wasn't really spilling his vote between two parties. It was part of a plan by Hamilton to have Adams and Pinckney win with tied votes so that it would go to Congress where they would select Pinckney as President and Adams and Vice-President. That plan was foiled by a number of electors voting for Adams but abstaining on the second vote. That led to the split party of Federalist Adams as President and Democratic-Republican and Vice-President.

A similar plan almost worked in the very heated 1800 election between Adams and Jefferson. Adams lost, but Jefferson and his Vice-Presidential running mate Aaron Burr tied for the most votes. That meant the decision between those two went to Congress. Federalists threatens to make Burr President and Jefferson Vice-President in order to embarrass the Democratic-Republicans. That led to a drawn out battle until a couple Congressmen relented and allowed Jefferson to become selected for President out of fear that to do otherwise would likely result in the dissolution of the United States and due to Hamilton's strong objection to Burr (who would go on to kill Hamilton in a duel).

Those elections resulted in the 12th Amendment establishing that electors cast separate votes for President and Vice-President.

There have been a handful of electors who have cast the vote for President as pledged but voted for the opposing party candidate for Vice-President for various reasons.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by slyjoe

I think the applicable phrase is "...dying on this hill."

Thank you. I thought maybe it should have been 'fighting to hold this hill'.

But I find your option more precisely what I was trying to say.

[DevilsAdvocate]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

If the legislative audit drags out past the various deadlines, who decides whether PA sends electors?

There isn't really a deadline Pennsylvania for certification of the electors. Counties have to report final results by November 23, which is also the last day for a candidate to contest the election.

Under Federal law any resolution to a contested election must be resolved within six days before the meeting of electors (meaning by December 8 this year) in order to be conclusive. The meeting of electors is December 14.

But it doesn't really matter much if that deadline is missed. If not done by December 8, the electors could be challenged during the reading of the votes in the joint session of Congress. If there is a challenge, vote counting stops and the U.S. House nd Senate each vote on whether to approve the challenge. But Democrats will control the House, so the challenge will not be upheld.

The General Assembly (the state legislature) has the authority to hear contests of some elections, but for Presidential and Vice-Presidential elections state law grants exclusive authority to the Commonwealth Court to resolve a contested election or review the actions of the Secretary of State.

The state legislature may have some authority to demand that the Secretary of State turn over certain information so that the legislature can conduct its own audit. The could turn over the results of that audit to Trump so that he could contest the election in Commonwealth Court.

The state legislature could try to send its own slate of electors to Congress. But if Congress gets more than one set of electors from a state, the House and Senate vote on which one to select. If the vote is split (which is likely) it defaults to the electors certified by the executive of the state (the Governor).

The state legislature cannot, on its own, delay or change the certification of electors by the Governor.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

That's a link to a search string.

That's so you can tell which part of the article to look at.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

That's so you can tell which part of the article to look at.

Is this a joke?

Like you are using a search string with clickbait halves of the articles instead of quoting them yourself?

No.

[Skeptic Ginger]

We have an answer:

Yahoo news feed: GOP leaders in 4 states quash dubious Trump bid on electors

Quote:

Republican leaders in four critical states won by President-elect Joe Biden say they won’t participate in a legally dubious scheme to flip their state’s electors to vote for President Donald Trump. Their comments effectively shut down a half-baked plot some Republicans floated as a last chance to keep Trump in the White House.

State GOP lawmakers in Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin have all said they would not intervene in the selection of electors, who ultimately cast the votes that secure a candidate's victory. Such a move would violate state law and a vote of the people, several noted.

Can we put this hypothetical nothingberder to rest yet?

[gnome]

So long as we forever name it the "nothingberder".

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by Cain

What blogs? These blogs speak more to mainstream conservatism than, say, Sean Hannity? Mark Levine?

I poked my head into National Review's blog. There was a posting about a podcast by The Editors about Biden's win. It garnered over 700 comments (which is much higher than usual), most of them upset that NR was run by sell-outs.

The thing about the conservative press is that many of the mouthpieces are afraid of their audience.

And yet the National Review still did a podcast about Biden's win. It's over. Yes, he's still insisting he won. You didn't think losing the election was gong to stop his twitterrhia, did you? Yes he should accept defeat gracefully, but like the scorpion said to the frog, it's not in his nature.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by gnome

So long as we forever name it the "nothingberder".

Thanks, I corrected my post.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by Brainster

And yet the National Review still did a podcast about Biden's win. It's over. Yes, he's still insisting he won. You didn't think losing the election was gong to stop his twitterrhia, did you? Yes he should accept defeat gracefully, but like the scorpion said to the frog, it's not in his nature.

NR also published an issue dedicated entirely to opposing Trump... then puckered up to kiss ass. Yes, Biden won, but a lot of Trump supporters don't recognize it. And can we just focus on the adjacent-argument you're making: The blogs you read recognize that Biden's won. Yeah, and how much sway do they have? Other right-wingers regularly read NR, and enthusiastically disagree with the line over there. Rich Lowry and Kevin Williamson do not have nearly the same pull as Sean Hannity or Mark Levine.

As for Trump, yes, of course he will continue doing his thing on Twitter, but let's not fall into the in-retrospect-everything-is-obvious trap. If he runs again in 2024, people will say, "I knew it!" And if he doesn't, they'll say the same. damn. thing. I know Trump cares about receiving attention, but I'm not always sure how he'll pursue it.

[Elagabalus]

Originally Posted by Cain

NR also published an issue dedicated entirely to opposing Trump... then puckered up to kiss ass. Yes, Biden won, but a lot of Trump supporters don't recognize it. And can we just focus on the adjacent-argument you're making: The blogs you read recognize that Biden's won. Yeah, and how much sway do they have? Other right-wingers regularly read NR, and enthusiastically disagree with the line over there. Rich Lowry and Kevin Williamson do not have nearly the same pull as Sean Hannity or Mark Levine.

As for Trump, yes, of course he will continue doing his thing on Twitter, but let's not fall into the in-retrospect-everything-is-obvious trap. If he runs again in 2024, people will say, "I knew it!" And if he doesn't, they'll say the same. damn. thing. I know Trump cares about receiving attention, but I'm not always sure how he'll pursue it.

I think the Trump family should rent out a few stadiums across the land so DJT can continue making speeches to eager audiences. Call it "My Four Years" or something like that, and have him tour in perpetuity or until he dies. Did you see his speeches? The man was in the "zone".

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Is this a joke?

Nope. The search string *is* the part of the article which directly answers your question from post 229. This isn't exactly rocket surgery.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Can we put this hypothetical nothingberder to rest yet?

To the extent we trust GOP politicians to tell us the truth, yes we can.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Elagabalus

I think the Trump family should rent out a few stadiums across the land so DJT can continue making speeches to eager audiences. Call it "My Four Years" or something like that, and have him tour in perpetuity or until he dies. Did you see his speeches? The man was in the "zone".

My bet is Trump will fizzle fast once he's out of the office. Twitter will certainly ban him. Other Republicans with political aspirations will be seeking to replace him. Trump will be facing serious legal issues and will lack the protection being the president provided him.

The last President that tried to regain the Presidency after leaving the office was Roosevelt. Teddy Roosevelt that is. And the only one successful doing it was Grover Cleveland, a Democrat.

[The Atheist]

And his army is ready!

A million MAGAs descended on Washington.

According to Kayleigh McHaw-Haw.

Maybe 5,000. Close.

Top effort.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

My bet is Trump will fizzle fast once he's out of the office. Twitter will certainly ban him. Other Republicans with political aspirations will be seeking to replace him. Trump will be facing serious legal issues and will lack the protection being the president provided him.

The last President that tried to regain the Presidency after leaving the office was Roosevelt. Teddy Roosevelt that is. And the only one successful doing it was Grover Cleveland, a Democrat.

I'm not so sure he'll be banned. Suspended, more likely, when he crosses he line. More than once. Does twitter have a limit as to how many times a person can be suspended before being permanently banned?

[Cain]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

Twitter will certainly ban him.

After the presidency, I understand he'll need lawyers to scrub his account because he faces legal exposure (defamation lawsuits). As for Twitter banning him, I agree with Stacy. They'll try not to (they invented reasons to avoid banning him before). He's their biggest star. Others may have more followers, but I wouldn't be surprised if Trump is #1 in terms of engagement, and that's what really counts.

[slyjoe]

Originally Posted by Cain

After the presidency, I understand he'll need lawyers to scrub his account because he faces legal exposure (defamation lawsuits). As for Twitter banning him, I agree with Stacy. They'll try not to (they invented reasons to avoid banning him before). He's their biggest star. Others may have more followers, but I wouldn't be surprised if Trump is #1 in terms of engagement, and that's what really counts.

That may be, but do you think that's because he's the president?

ETA: I mean, eventually he may be indistinguishable from someone's crazy screaming uncle.

[alfaniner]

Originally Posted by Cain

After the presidency, I understand he'll need lawyers to scrub his account because he faces legal exposure (defamation lawsuits). As for Twitter banning him, I agree with Stacy. They'll try not to (they invented reasons to avoid banning him before). He's their biggest star. Others may have more followers, but I wouldn't be surprised if Trump is #1 in terms of engagement, and that's what really counts.

His Twitter account may be scrubbed but my understanding is that the Tweets have to be archived (whether by Twitter or not, I don't know) as Official Presidential Communications. I have to wonder if all the comments are required to be saved also.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by alfaniner

His Twitter account may be scrubbed but my understanding is that the Tweets have to be archived (whether by Twitter or not, I don't know) as Official Presidential Communications. I have to wonder if all the comments are required to be saved also.

My guess is no.

I also don't believe it would be Twitter's responsibility. The GSA maybe?

[Safe-Keeper]

Originally Posted by alfaniner

His Twitter account may be scrubbed but my understanding is that the Tweets have to be archived (whether by Twitter or not, I don't know) as Official Presidential Communications. I have to wonder if all the comments are required to be saved also.

I'm 100% sure they will be archived after the Twitter account is deleted. If not by an official instance, then by probably a lot of many different private actors.

[jrhowell]

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

I'm 100% sure they will be archived after the Twitter account is deleted. If not by an official instance, then by probably a lot of many different private actors.

And one day they will be collected into the Bible of the church of Trump from which sermons will be read to his faithful followers.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

My guess is no.



I also don't believe it would be Twitter's responsibility. The GSA maybe?

I think it's probably the National Archives.

ETA: They maintain the previous President's archival twitter:

https://twitter.com/POTUS44/status/822446982648201216

[gnome]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

My guess is no.

I also don't believe it would be Twitter's responsibility. The GSA maybe?

Remember it's not about what's required, but whether it's enforceable. If they are not archived, oops we forgot, what happens?

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by gnome

Remember it's not about what's required, but whether it's enforceable. If they are not archived, oops we forgot, what happens?

Doesn't matter. There have been people copying every tweet. Even the deleted ones.

[Garrison]

Originally Posted by Brainster

And yet the National Review still did a podcast about Biden's win. It's over. Yes, he's still insisting he won. You didn't think losing the election was gong to stop his twitterrhia, did you? Yes he should accept defeat gracefully, but like the scorpion said to the frog, it's not in his nature.

The problem is all those people who should be working to assist the transition and are instead parroting the Trump line and engaging in obstructive behaviour. They are not going to do their jobs until Trump concedes.