https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53597975
We had one during the Civil War.
Huge mistake to ask for this.
We had one during the Civil War.
Huge mistake to ask for this.
OMG...Trump wants to delay election.
- Thread starter TUMe
- Start date
If my reading up on the topic is correct, Trump actually cannot decree, edict, or EO this action since it is prescribed by Congressional statute. The only body that can delay a Federal election is Congress since they alone are responsible for passing and enacting Federal law. Am I reading and interpreting that correctly?
Also, if he does delay, am I correct in understanding Trump's term ends January 20, 2021 (whatever day inauguration day is). 12th Amendment is very convoluted when it talks about what happens next. In reading it, it sounds like if the electoral college cannot elect a POTUS with a majority of votes, then it goes to the House of Representatives, but the full house would not vote as individuals, they would vote as states (1 state= 1 vote). Here's where we will see the partisanship go full bore. 12A also mandates that each state have a quorum equal to 2/3 of the delegation. This means delegates of the minority party for a state can basically negate that state's vote by simply not showing up for the vote if it leaves the state with less than the required number of delegates to cast votes for their state. There's also a ton of conjecture that the Speaker of the House would assume the Presidency on inauguration day...but I am not reading the same. I do know that the specific date of March 4th comes into play if the electors OR the House cannot elect a President. If this happens, my interpretation of 12A states that the Vice President (meaning current VP Pence) would assume the role of President until the impasse can be settled.
Any Constitutional scholars out there that can clarify or correct my interpretations? I would assume we are in unchartered territory right now.
Also, if he does delay, am I correct in understanding Trump's term ends January 20, 2021 (whatever day inauguration day is). 12th Amendment is very convoluted when it talks about what happens next. In reading it, it sounds like if the electoral college cannot elect a POTUS with a majority of votes, then it goes to the House of Representatives, but the full house would not vote as individuals, they would vote as states (1 state= 1 vote). Here's where we will see the partisanship go full bore. 12A also mandates that each state have a quorum equal to 2/3 of the delegation. This means delegates of the minority party for a state can basically negate that state's vote by simply not showing up for the vote if it leaves the state with less than the required number of delegates to cast votes for their state. There's also a ton of conjecture that the Speaker of the House would assume the Presidency on inauguration day...but I am not reading the same. I do know that the specific date of March 4th comes into play if the electors OR the House cannot elect a President. If this happens, my interpretation of 12A states that the Vice President (meaning current VP Pence) would assume the role of President until the impasse can be settled.
Any Constitutional scholars out there that can clarify or correct my interpretations? I would assume we are in unchartered territory right now.
This argument he is making is total BS about improper voting. There are less than 1% of the voters who make an error on their voting and need to spoil their ballot, and get another ballot to vote.
Somebody usually makes a small mark on one candidate and a full mark on the other candidate when it happens. Occasionally a person fully marks a candidate and then changes their mind. But usually they idly rest their pen on a candidate that they aren't voting for and then makes a full mark on the candidate they are voting for. Either way they have to spoil their ballot.
This is coming first hand from a person working the elections as an inspector, namely me. I have seen it happen time and time again, that less than 1 person out of 100 has to spoil their vote, tear their first ballot up,(and give it up to us) and revote properly.
Only the closest election would be affected by that small a margin. We're talking about .0 - .75 of 1%. And those ballots are mixed up equally between the two parties.
Somebody usually makes a small mark on one candidate and a full mark on the other candidate when it happens. Occasionally a person fully marks a candidate and then changes their mind. But usually they idly rest their pen on a candidate that they aren't voting for and then makes a full mark on the candidate they are voting for. Either way they have to spoil their ballot.
This is coming first hand from a person working the elections as an inspector, namely me. I have seen it happen time and time again, that less than 1 person out of 100 has to spoil their vote, tear their first ballot up,(and give it up to us) and revote properly.
Only the closest election would be affected by that small a margin. We're talking about .0 - .75 of 1%. And those ballots are mixed up equally between the two parties.
Last edited:
First, I think the damage is done. Trump went a bridge too far.
What he was getting at was/is that there would be cheating. My dog died a couple of years ago (good dog she was) then I get an extra ballot and Trudy votes.
But again, by going without any proof and in advance it makes him look scared and weird. He was already on thin ice and now he is in the ice water.
What he was getting at was/is that there would be cheating. My dog died a couple of years ago (good dog she was) then I get an extra ballot and Trudy votes.
But again, by going without any proof and in advance it makes him look scared and weird. He was already on thin ice and now he is in the ice water.
During the 2012 election an unknown offshore company using a computer purportedly in the Bahamas (yeah right) hacked the Miami Dade supervisor of elections website and successfully changed the address of numerous individuals over age 90 in two nursing homes and requested an absentee ballot be sent to a single Fed Ex/Kinkos mail stop. The number of ballots requested exceeded the margin of victory in several local races in that precinct. Most of the voters were dead and had not been removed from the rolls as required by law. Only an alert mail clerk who saw the same address twice on top of two column of outgoing mail on a pallet caught the scam. Still think vote by mail is a good idea?
I rewatched that last night..... I could see Trump pitching something like Market Garden.
Its so funny watching him play the media like a violin....
Crazy like a freaking fox...
Crazy like a freaking fox...
Evidence of cheating similar to that is limited. So we don't have mail in voting because a couple of 5000 votes are illegally obtained. When the vast majority are legal. 5000 scammed votes out of approximately 130M. And that assumption of 5000 is likely an overestimate. And we aren't going to do vote by mail, to avoid that 400,000 of a percent.(.00004)
This is part of the propaganda spewed by both sides to avoid a particularly hot potato.
Americans disfavor election integrity. We want things to be as easy as possible and that includes believing that it’s good public policy to allow private citizens to perform government functions like voter registrations. In the name of voter access, we concede that it’s a good idea to let people standing outside a grocery store take down your name, date of birth and social security number. In what other context in America is that activity considered safe by the average American? Nigerian prince on line? SCAM! Recovering drug addict employed by fly by night election campaign funded from out of state by people previously convicted of fraud, no problem!
Politicians don’t like voter integrity. To undertake enforcement necessary to deter election crime, you either have to prosecute your friends or antagonize your enemies, neither is seen as a win. It also requires you to concede that you haven’t been watching the store. And inevitably, the most savvy realize that they have indirectly and unknowingly benefitted from it and are afraid to cede a personal advantage. Finally, it’s costly. Our present system depends on volunteers and decades old equipment. It would take billions to clean it up. You want to spend billions on things that will get you re-elected, like the poor, or on a new weapons system to be built in your district, or something used once every two years nobody cares about “because it doesn’t happen”? So let’s just say it doesn’t happen and spend the money on ourselves.
In turn, we’ve groomed a campaign culture, particularly since 2000, that voter integrity and vague election laws and rules should be weaponized and leveraged for advantage legitimately, while both sides run a wink wink shadow operation to commit various crimes necessary to win and within the margin of risk and acceptability if caught. We saw that most recently in North Carolina where the leadership knowingly activated a legitimate election integrity operation and had their own absentee ballot purchasing and ballot stuffing operation going at the same time.
We talk a lot about American exceptionalism, particularly in the context of foreign wars. Despite some pretty mediocre results the last fifty years under our noses, most Americans think our military is invincible, can solve any problem, and has never lost a war. Same with political corruption. Despite repeated instances of graft and common acceptance of politicians who the public knows is on the take, we don’t have politicians and police who take bribes like in other countries. Election integrity fits into this category. We don’t want to admit it until we do, like in North Carolina when Republicans got caught and the willingness of the public to accept the Russians stole the 2016 election narrative without a single shred of evidence beyond intelligence “reports” that they tried when it was obviously spin to cover the public’s rejection of radical Democratic Party policies and a caustic candidate.
There’s plenty of evidence of voter fraud. This website says around 1200 cases with convictions. But I know that number is wrong because it omits two white individuals I prosecuted and convicted for trading absentee ballots from black voters for $10 in gasoline at their convenience store to assist their father’s re-election campaign. I’m sure there are countless more since federal criminal referrals that don’t proceed are mostly confidential.
Stop and think when people tell you there isn’t fraud and ask yourself why you want to believe that without concrete data points.
https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud
Last edited:
Why not? Some states will allow mail in ballots post marked as much as 17 days after the election.
Here's my contention. Why, in the face of Covid, and foreign influence on our elections aren't our politicians saying, "Yes, mail in voting as it currently operates could have some problems... but it's the right thing to do to encourage and allow our citizens to safely and easily exercise their most important freedom in this climate. We are undertaking a massive operation to insure the validity of our elections using scientists, statisticians, and operations managers to insure the idea of 'one person - one vote'. If we can put a man on the moon, we should be able to, in this the age of communication, guarantee that people are able to vote from the safety of their home while still maintaining fair and balanced elections. We are going to study the issues and fix this problem to the benefit of our citizenry and our progeny. "
Last edited:
BTW, I read somewhere that Chuck Grassley (President Pro-Tempore) would likely become President in the case that elections were delayed indefinitely since he would be the most senior incumbent elected official who was not up for re-election. Pelosi would be out of the line because the house would effectively not have any elected officials anymore.
But, in the case the elections were delayed... the Senate would only have 65 senators left, a majority of whom would be Democrats, so they could theoretically select a new President Pro-Tempore who might become acting president. This is like a bad dream. Nothing makes sense anymore. If only people had listened in February / March and not called Covid the 'Flu'.
But, in the case the elections were delayed... the Senate would only have 65 senators left, a majority of whom would be Democrats, so they could theoretically select a new President Pro-Tempore who might become acting president. This is like a bad dream. Nothing makes sense anymore. If only people had listened in February / March and not called Covid the 'Flu'.
Last edited:
War gaming Trump's next election moves:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/how-2020-election-could-go-wrong/614842/?
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/how-2020-election-could-go-wrong/614842/?
I don’t care how many camels he can identify on a dementia test. The man is mentally ill and should have been removed via the 25th amendment long before now. November 3 will be the beginning of the end for him and his crime family.
Why we aren’t discussing blockchain in voting is beyond me.
Oh well, looks like August will be heating up. My prediction is this will be page six news real soon.
Oh well, looks like August will be heating up. My prediction is this will be page six news real soon.
Counterfeit documents are giving criminals a license to commit a host of offenses, including terrorism, U.S. officials say -- and young adults who are lax with their personal information may be their biggest enablers.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/fake-drivers-licenses-flooding-into-us-from-china-other-countries-us-says
https://www.foxnews.com/us/fake-drivers-licenses-flooding-into-us-from-china-other-countries-us-says
