As expected Trump claims election is being stolen from him

Post Reply New Topic

Trump's Presidency ends at noon on January 20 unless he has been reelected. If Trump starts trying to draw out the process and no winner is determined by January 20, then he is no longer President on that date and an interim President takes over until a winner is determined.

There is some question of who that interim President would be. The entire House of Representative went through a reelection. I don't see why the newly elected/reelected House would not be in session. After all, why would the election of members of the House of Representatives depend on the Presidential election. If that is the case, then it is the Speaker of the House. Can you say President Pelosi? Of course, the House could elect a different Speaker of the House and some of the more centrist Democrat House members are apparently interested in selecting a more moderate Speaker of the House.

If, for some reason, the House and Senate depends on the Presidential election, then it would go to the President Pro Tempore of the Senate. Remember that the Senate has six year terms and only a third are up for reelection in any biennial general election. Even if the new Congress was waiting on the election, there is still a president Pro Tempore of the Senate.

So if Trump tries a lot of crazy tricks to remain President by halting the election and the courts allow him to do it, then he will no longer be President on January 20.

ok, if SCOTUS rules in trumpy's favor even if it is months after jan. 20 [expected], will biden have to step aside?

No.

Once a person has been innaugrated, they are there until 25th ammendment\successful impeachment\other cause for being unfit for office\next election.

Otherwise there would have been a chance Mr Gore could have got in in 2001.

Of course, if it is found that Mr Trump should have won but didn't, it may make 2024 more interesting that it would otherwise have been...

^^^thank you for that succinct answer

Do you really believe Trump's nonsense about voting fraud Bric?

The polling strategists already projected that this year there would be a record turnout and there would be a large postal vote because of COVID19. They also figured postal votes would favor Biden because democrats would be more likely to follow Joe's advice to do the right thing and stay away from polling booths and post their votes. Meanwhile the MAGAs were more represented in the booths.

The pundits knew that Biden’s Voters would be more Likely To Vote By Mail Than Trump’s. The proof was in the early results, Any wonder that Trump started his weird call that there was voter fraud. It was fake because he knew if he could call tight states as illegal it would favour his election chances.

The whole thing is not rocket science Bric, its opportunism and Trump is a desperate opportunist playing his last card before he's tossed out of the casino.

Haven't you figured out by now that Brictoria is an objective analytical thinker who is not swayed by anyone's subjectivity and can easily decipher what is a claim and conjecture from what is fact?

These would be the same "pundits" and "polling strategists" who had Mr Biden slated to easily win Texas and Florida?

Regarding the potential issues, I find certain statistical anomolies interesting, though whether there was fraud behind them, or a random "cluster", who can tell without further investigation.

Given there are reports (which can be verified) of deceased people having voted (as well as people reporting that on arriving to vote on the day they were informed a mail-in ballot had already been received under their name when they had not requested, nor received one.), there obviously were cases of fraud, but the scale is unknown, and trying to prevent this being questioned\investigated could lead an impartial observer into believing there was something to be found.

Similarly, the software used in several counties "mistakenly" crediting votes from one side towards the total for the other (always the same direction) would normally cause people to query the accuracy of the results in other counties which used that product.

There are also stories (with video) of vote counts dropping for one side during broadcast, but that is as likely to be due to a typo on the broadcaster's end (if manually entering the numbers as they come in, rather than taking them from an official feed of the count) as it is to be caused by someone altering official numbers.

Finally, given that there is a process in place which is designed for cases where a participant may (subjectively) perceive an issue that occurred, there is no harm in any perceived issues being brought to light, if only to show that the person who perceived the problem was mistaken. Trying to subvert this process in order to avoid scrutiny of the election process\results lessens the credibility of the result, as it leaves open the ability of the person "wronged" to continue their claim, rather than closing it, and can cause the appearance that the person or group trying to subvert this process may have something which they do not want to have revealed.

On a side note, I seem to recall recently requesting that you cease addressing comments or communication towards me...

So you're saying that the impartiality of her first-hand experience is suspect because of her affiliations? Where is your evidence in support of this?

But it's both easy and intellectually lazy to play the ad hominem game, if that's really where you want to go with this.
Your posted link in response to mine, presumably as some sort of counter-argument, is itself subject to the same claim you make against mine: I arrived at the TCF Center in Detroit at 9:30 a.m. Wednesday to volunteer as a “Election Challenger/Poll Watcher.”

@Brictoria:

There’s a difference between donny telling people to pick up their guns and a civil rights activist telling people to stand up for their rights.

One is intended to stir the pot of radicalized right wing loyalists who may commit acts of violence on trump’s behalf, the other is intended to get people to be assertive in peacefully protesting for equal treatment under the law regardless of their race or ethnicity.

Well... Trump has hired David "out of his cotton-picking mind" Bossie to oversee his efforts to legally challenge the outcome of the election.

David Bossie just contracted coronavirus...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... -for-virus

Did Donald Trump not promise that the coronavirus would disappear on November 4, 2020?  How can his hand-picked henchman have contracted a non-existent virus?  Could this be...

... fake news?

I disagree. There can be harm in pursuing low probability events ad infinitum.

One can push the quest for the perfect vote count, or perfect audit too far. I have a friend, very smart, CPA, NT. But he collects disability because he cannot work. Why not? He has OCD to the point that he can NEVER FINISH an audit. He has to keep going over the numbers, redoing the calculations, rethinking everything.

Likewise, there is a danger in pursuing the "perfect" vote count. Rather than illuminating the results of the election, the larger problem of questioning the legitimacy of the vote ad infinitum is the longer doubt continues, the more difficult it becomes to get on with the governance of the country. And who is to say at what point "the truth" has been determined? Since the whole purpose of the election is to further govern the country, it is in the best interests of the country to settle the matter, legitimately, and move on.

Some might argue that it is better to pursue the "truth" ad infinitum, and others that we need to take the overwhelmingly likely result and get on with the governance. But that is opinion and not fact.

We know from past elections that minor irregularities and possible fraud have occurred in infinitesimally small quantities. But because one candidate has so clearly won, it has not been necessary to sort out these minor irregularities. If one has followed elections for some 50 years, you understand this is the case. If one has only paid attention to this election, one might think ah ha! there is voter fraud. But there isn't more than typically occurs with tallies of votes in the millions.

Just like I voted 3-5 Million times for Hillary in 2016, I Also voted (Illegally!) 3-5 Million times for Joe Biden.

Did the discussion descend down to memes? I'm disappointed. Crazy conspiracy theories are fun, memes are just pictures with slogans.
^ Anyway, who's that guy?