Stealing an election in broad daylight

STANV said:

cramer said:

Kentucky?   

 As Majority Leader

 Gotcha. Thanks. 

cramer said:

Kentucky?   

I think PVW means hopefully Georgia Trump voters will refuse to vote January 5th as a result of the mainstream GOP's most prominent politician disrespecting the cult leader.

McConnell is probably trying to contain some of the damage done to the Republicans in Georgia's runoff. Some Trumpists are pledging to boycott the election since it will obviously be rigged against them anyway. Perdue and Loeffler also need to be able to campaign on the fact that Republicans need to keep the Senate to potect everyone from free health insurance and rights for non-whites.

cramer said:

Trump asking for McConnell's resignation. 

 If he didn't tweet it, did it happen?

I actually looked on his Twitter page because if he tweeted a demand for Mitch's resignation i would print it and hang it up.

STANV said:

cramer said:

Kentucky?   

 As Majority Leader

 ^^

contra Ken Paxton, voters in one state of course don't get to determine the results of another state. I was just trying to be a bit clever in wishing for both Democrats to win next month (perhaps too clever by half).

mrincredible said:

cramer said:

Kentucky?   

I think PVW means hopefully Georgia Trump voters will refuse to vote January 5th as a result of the mainstream GOP's most prominent politician disrespecting the cult leader.

McConnell is probably trying to contain some of the damage done to the Republicans in Georgia's runoff. Some Trumpists are pledging to boycott the election since it will obviously be rigged against them anyway. Perdue and Loeffler also need to be able to campaign on the fact that Republicans need to keep the Senate to potect everyone from free health insurance and rights for non-whites.

 If it's a choice between Trump still claiming there was fraud and the Republicans holding onto the Senate, you know what Trump will do. He's still tweeting there was fraud even after McConnell acknowleged that Biden won the Electoral College. 

cramer said:

 If it's a choice between Trump still claiming there was fraud and the Republicans holding onto the Senate, you know what Trump will do. He's still tweeting there was fraud even after McConnell acknowleged that Biden won the Electoral College. 

 Yeah I have no doubt that will continue until Trump is dead or his Twitter account is revoked. 

Loeffler and Perdue need to be able to motivate their voters with the fear of Democratic control of the Senate.  I hope they choke on Trump's sour grapes.

ho hum, what else is new?

drummerboy the CBS News item apparently was posted back in August. Weird that this wasn't made more of a big deal. 

mrincredible said:

drummerboy the CBS News item apparently was posted back in August. Weird that this wasn't made more of a big deal. 

 shoot, you're right. sorry about that. have to remember to always look at the dates.

But yeah, there's so much sh!t that comes out of this administration that major stories like this just fall by the wayside.

If there's one guy that I want to see go to jail it's the Post Office's DeJoy.

drummerboy said:

 shoot, you're right. sorry about that. have to remember to always look at the dates.

But yeah, there's so much sh!t that comes out of this administration that major stories like this just fall by the wayside.

If there's one guy that I want to see go to jail it's the Post Office's DeJoy.

 As they said in an SNL skit a few weeks ago... Why do I know the name of the Postmaster General?

drummerboy said:

 shoot, you're right. sorry about that. have to remember to always look at the dates.

But yeah, there's so much sh!t that comes out of this administration that major stories like this just fall by the wayside.

If there's one guy that I want to see go to jail it's the Post Office's DeJoy.

 It looks like Judge Sullivan didn't ever actually order him into court to explain himself. I wonder what's up there.

And why the hell would the Postmaster General need to redact his schedule? He's not the DNI for heaven's sake.

Finding humor in Trump’s destruction of government:

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Russian hackers attempting to disrupt the U.S. government were disappointed to discover that it had already been thoroughly disabled, the hackers have confirmed.

Expecting to find a well-oiled machine that they could impair, the hackers instead came upon a barely operational mess that had already suffered what appeared to be four years of degradation.

Dmitri X (not his real name), was assigned to hack the Environmental Protection Agency’s computer systems and was “shocked” by the agency’s weakened condition.

“My job was to access the E.P.A.’s database and delete all of the environmental regulations,” he said. “There was nothing there left to delete.”

The hacker found similar evidence of sabotage at the Department of Justice, the Department of Education, and myriad other federal agencies.

“To be honest, it was pretty disheartening,” he said. “I was hired to cripple the U.S. government, but it’s clear that someone else got there first.”

The hacker could not identify who was behind the widespread vandalism, but speculated that the culprit had vast experience in driving large organizations into bankruptcy.

So let me get this straight, on January 6, congress could basically just decide to overturn the presidential election?

By all means, feel free to get it straight.

This week in unused Panto jokes...

“Let’s get something straight between us, Mrs Brown!”

“What here? In front of all these children?”

Why not, Mrs. Brown? You’ve got a lovely garter.

basil said:

So let me get this straight, on January 6, congress could basically just decide to overturn the presidential election?

 Theoretically. As I understand they could vote to reject the Electors from certain States and that could result in neither candidate having a majority and the House picking the President with each State having one-vote (See Election of 1824) and the Senate picking the VP. And if vote in House is tied the VP picked by Senate becomes President (See next to last season of VEEP)

Got it?

STANV said:

basil said:

So let me get this straight, on January 6, congress could basically just decide to overturn the presidential election?

 Theoretically. As I understand they could vote to reject the Electors from certain States and that could result in neither candidate having a majority and the House picking the President with each State having one-vote (See Election of 1824) and the Senate picking the VP. And if vote in House is tied the VP picked by Senate becomes President (See next to last season of VEEP)

Got it?

Yes, I got it. But it is insane.

Everybody is saying that it won't happen (this time) because Democrats control the House. But what if we ever get into a situation where one party holds House and Senate, and the President-elect is from the other party? They can just change it?

basil said:

They can just change it?

For what it’s worth, I found it fruitful to explore this somewhat complicated topic through outside reading after conducting online searches. (I didn’t keep tabs on the specific sources, but informative article were easy enough to find.)

DaveSchmidt said:

basil said:

They can just change it?

For what it’s worth, I found it fruitful to explore this somewhat complicated topic through outside reading after conducting online searches. (I didn’t keep tabs on the specific sources, but informative article were easy enough to find.)

I did some online reading, although it definitely wasn't extensive research. My understanding is in line with what stanv said. The votes get certified in congress, but they can object to the results of certain states (needs one house member + one senator), in which case the House and Senate go into separate sessions to debate, and then they vote (simple majority is enough). So that way they can essentially toss out votes for certain states, and then if nobody has a majority, they have this other strange procedure where congress elects the President instead with one vote per state.

Is this consistent with your reading?

It may be "strange" or "insane" but that's the way the Constitution reads. Originally it said that the person with the most Electoral votes becomes President and the person with the second most becomes VP. But in 1800 there was a tie between Jefferson and Burr so after about 35 votes, someone switched to Jefferson.

Then they passed the 12th Amendment to solve the problem. But that was over 200 years ago.

Just found this:

1800 Presidential Election Results

"Democratic-Republican Thomas Jefferson defeated Federalist John Adams by a margin of seventy-three to sixty-five electoral votes in the presidential election of 1800. When presidential electors cast their votes, however, they failed to distinguish between the office of president and vice president on their ballots. Jefferson and his running mate Aaron Burr each received seventy-three votes. With the votes tied, the election was thrown to the House of Representatives as required by Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. There, each state voted as a unit to decide the election.

Still dominated by Federalists, the sitting Congress loathed to vote for Jefferson—their partisan nemesis. For six days starting on February 11, 1801, Jefferson and Burr essentially ran against each other in the House. Votes were tallied over thirty times, yet neither man captured the necessary majority of nine states. Eventually, Federalist James A. Bayard of Delaware, under intense pressure and fearing for the future of the Union, made known his intention to break the impasse. As Delaware’s lone representative, Bayard controlled the state’s entire vote. On the thirty-sixth ballot, Bayard and other Federalists from South Carolina, Maryland, and Vermont cast blank ballots, breaking the deadlock and giving Jefferson the support of ten states, enough to win the presidency." (Source: Today in History, February 17)

Library of Congress Web Site | External Web Sites | Selected Bibliography

STANV said:

It may be "strange" or "insane" but that's the way the Constitution reads. Originally it said that the person with the most Electoral votes becomes President and the person with the second most becomes VP. But in 1800 there was a tie between Jefferson and Burr so after about 35 votes, someone switched to Jefferson.

Then they passed the 12th Amendment to solve the problem. But that was over 200 years ago.

Just found this:

1800 Presidential Election Results

"Democratic-Republican Thomas Jefferson defeated Federalist John Adams by a margin of seventy-three to sixty-five electoral votes in the presidential election of 1800. When presidential electors cast their votes, however, they failed to distinguish between the office of president and vice president on their ballots. Jefferson and his running mate Aaron Burr each received seventy-three votes. With the votes tied, the election was thrown to the House of Representatives as required by Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. There, each state voted as a unit to decide the election.

Still dominated by Federalists, the sitting Congress loathed to vote for Jefferson—their partisan nemesis. For six days starting on February 11, 1801, Jefferson and Burr essentially ran against each other in the House. Votes were tallied over thirty times, yet neither man captured the necessary majority of nine states. Eventually, Federalist James A. Bayard of Delaware, under intense pressure and fearing for the future of the Union, made known his intention to break the impasse. As Delaware’s lone representative, Bayard controlled the state’s entire vote. On the thirty-sixth ballot, Bayard and other Federalists from South Carolina, Maryland, and Vermont cast blank ballots, breaking the deadlock and giving Jefferson the support of ten states, enough to win the presidency." (Source: Today in History, February 17)

Library of Congress Web Site | External Web Sites | Selected Bibliography

I should have used the word "undemocratic" (instead of strange and insane).

What's wrong with just counting the (popular) votes, and whoever gets the most wins? That's how a democracy is supposed to work.

STANV said:

It may be "strange" or "insane" but that's the way the Constitution reads. Originally it said that the person with the most Electoral votes becomes President and the person with the second most becomes VP. But in 1800 there was a tie between Jefferson and Burr so after about 35 votes, someone switched to Jefferson.

Then they passed the 12th Amendment to solve the problem. But that was over 200 years ago.

Just found this:

1800 Presidential Election Results

"Democratic-Republican Thomas Jefferson defeated Federalist John Adams by a margin of seventy-three to sixty-five electoral votes in the presidential election of 1800. When presidential electors cast their votes, however, they failed to distinguish between the office of president and vice president on their ballots. Jefferson and his running mate Aaron Burr each received seventy-three votes. With the votes tied, the election was thrown to the House of Representatives as required by Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. There, each state voted as a unit to decide the election.

Still dominated by Federalists, the sitting Congress loathed to vote for Jefferson—their partisan nemesis. For six days starting on February 11, 1801, Jefferson and Burr essentially ran against each other in the House. Votes were tallied over thirty times, yet neither man captured the necessary majority of nine states. Eventually, Federalist James A. Bayard of Delaware, under intense pressure and fearing for the future of the Union, made known his intention to break the impasse. As Delaware’s lone representative, Bayard controlled the state’s entire vote. On the thirty-sixth ballot, Bayard and other Federalists from South Carolina, Maryland, and Vermont cast blank ballots, breaking the deadlock and giving Jefferson the support of ten states, enough to win the presidency." (Source: Today in History, February 17)

Library of Congress Web Site | External Web Sites | Selected Bibliography

DaveSchmidt said:

basil said:

They can just change it?

For what it’s worth, I found it fruitful to explore this somewhat complicated topic through outside reading after conducting online searches. (I didn’t keep tabs on the specific sources, but informative article were easy enough to find.)

 Based on STANV's post, this was clearly yet another effort on your part to boost the visibility of The First State.

My name is James A. Bayard Sr., son

And there’s a vote stalemate that’s partisan

But just you wait, just you wait

It appears that the actions of the Republican Party since November 3 are making it clear that the only sure thing stopping them from overturning the presidential election is the Democratic majority in the House.  The blueprint is here for future elections.  If the congressional majority party doesn't like the result all they need to do is come up with some phony pretext to throw out the electors from a couple of states and toss the election to the House.

There should be a lot more alarm over this than I'm seeing.

ml1 said:

It appears that the actions of the Republican Party since November 3 are making it clear that the only sure thing stopping them from overturning the presidential election is the Democratic majority in the House.  The blueprint is here for future elections.  If the congressional majority party doesn't like the result all they need to do is come up with some phony pretext to throw out the electors from a couple of states and toss the election to the House.

There should be a lot more alarm over this than I'm seeing.

Totally agree. It also means that the US Democratic system is not very solid and well-regulated, and needs to be fixed.

ml1 said:

It appears that the actions of the Republican Party since November 3 are making it clear that the only sure thing stopping them from overturning the presidential election is the Democratic majority in the House.

What makes it clear that the 11 senators objecting to the electoral vote would get a majority to go along with them?

basil said:

ml1 said:

It appears that the actions of the Republican Party since November 3 are making it clear that the only sure thing stopping them from overturning the presidential election is the Democratic majority in the House.  The blueprint is here for future elections.  If the congressional majority party doesn't like the result all they need to do is come up with some phony pretext to throw out the electors from a couple of states and toss the election to the House.

There should be a lot more alarm over this than I'm seeing.

Totally agree. It also means that the US Democratic system is not very solid and well-regulated, and needs to be fixed.

 Unfortunately, it's not the "US Democratic system" that's the problem, or that can be "fixed" to deal with the problem.

The problem is that part of the GOP which is rejecting one of the foundations of democracy - somebody loses an election.  The only way any democratic system of government can survive is if all participants accept that fact.

The GOP is rejecting a principle of Democracy that is the only thing which has sustained the continued existence of the United States.  The most egregious bunch of sore losers, the Confederacy, were only a little worse than these selfish slimeballs.

DaveSchmidt said:

ml1 said:

It appears that the actions of the Republican Party since November 3 are making it clear that the only sure thing stopping them from overturning the presidential election is the Democratic majority in the House.

What makes it clear that the 11 senators objecting to the electoral vote would get a majority to go along with them?

What is it about the modern Republican party that makes you think they wouldn't all climb on board if there was half a chance of victory? They're only staying away now because the "case" being made is embarrassingly bad and weak.

That it's gotten this much support should scare the crap out of all of us.