The Trump thread: All things Donald

[msslave]

Guess whoever created this didn't attend your classes Miss B.

[Jed_]

Lots of one-termers, but the triple whammy of also losing the popular vote and being impeached; Trump will be alone there for a long time if not forever.  They will get rid of the electoral college before that’s repeated.

[msslave]

So Donnie came out of his White House bunker today.

If he saw his shadow, does that mean we have six more weeks of denying his election loss?

[Sweetums]

Here’s something that terrified me the other day. There’s actually a legal way to become president even if you lose the popular vote and the electoral vote:

[MissBarbara]

Here’s something that terrified me the other day. There’s actually a legal way to become president even if you lose the popular vote and the electoral vote:

First things first, the "mind-blowing" revelation that a candidate could lose the popular vote, lose the electoral vote, and still become president isn't shocking, or even revelatory, to anyone familiar with the Constitution and U.S. history.

In fact, the exact scenario he outlines has already happened -- close to 200 years ago.

Here are the popular and electoral vote totals of the 1824 presidential election:




As you can see, Andrew Jackson soundly beat John Quincy Adams in the popular vote, and he received 15 more electoral votes than Adams. However, Jackson did not win a simply majority of the total electoral votes cast, as required by the Constitution, and, therefore, the election had to be decided by the House of Representatives in what's known as a "contingent election." The Constitution, as modified by the 12th Amendment, outlines what happens: The representatives vote as state delegations, with each state delegation receiving one vote. The candidate who receives the majority of the state-by-state votes, wins the election.

And that's what happened. In the contingent election, among the 24 states that existed at the time, Adams won 13 states, Jackson won 7, and Crawford won 4.

So, this guy is wrong in one key respect: It's not a "coup," and it's not an "invisible process." Jackson won the popular vote and the electoral vote, but Adams won the vote in the House, and he became the president. It's all clearly outlined in the U.S. Constitution, and it's been there for over two centuries.

There is no legal or constitutional requirement for the losing candidate to concede the election and give a concession speech, and there's no law requiring that candidate to "accept" either the popular or electoral vote totals. Those totals are facts, and the candidate's acceptance of them, or not, is immaterial.

He's correct in noting that it has been a longstanding tradition for the losing candidate to concede the election and give a concession speech shortly after the election. In the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton conceded the election to Trump and gave a concession speech around 11:00 am on the day after Election Day. In 2012, Mitt Romney conceded the election around 12:30 am, only a few hours after the West Coast polls had closed, and he gave his concession speech later that morning.

On top of that, the popular vote and electoral votes processes are not "secretive" or carried out by an "elite," using his words. The popular vote totals are officially certified in each state (and Washington DC), and the electors vote based on those results. A point many Americans don't realize is that each state has two slates of electors, which are chosen before Election Day. For example, my state has 29 electoral votes, so before the Election Day voting even began, there was a slate of 29 electors pledged to Trump, and a slate of 29 electors pledged to Biden. On December 14, the day when electors in all 50 states will meet in their respective states and cast their electoral votes, the electors pledged to the winner of the state's popular votes will cast their electoral votes, and the electors pledged to the losing candidate will not vote at all.

On top of that, while the electors in most states are not legally bound to vote for the popular vote winner in their state to whom they are pledged, "faithless electors" who vote for someone other than the popular vote winner have never even come close to changing the outcome of an election. And there's absolutely no reason to believe that "faithless electors" will change the result of the 2020 election.

His point about a concession speech by the losing candidate causing an "instant demobilization of the candidate's campaign army" is interesting. And it might be even more germane right now, since the apparent losing candidate in the 2020 election has not conceded, has proclaimed he will not concede, and seems to be actively encouraging dissent and objection among his faithful. It remains, if only hypothetically, possible for their dissent and objection to engender violence, perhaps even on a larger scale.

Still, those concerned about the current state of the 2020 presidential election should take comfort in three facts:

First, those dissenting Trump supporters represent only a tiny fraction of the 73 million or so people who voted for Trump in the election. And even if thousands, or even tens of thousands, of Trump supporters resort to violence, they will be met by stern opposition from local police, state police, state National Guard members, or, if it gets to that, the U.S. military.

Second (and somewhat obviously), this was the first time in U.S. history that a presidential election has held in the midst of a worldwide pandemic. As many as 60% of the votes were cast by absentee ballot, mail-in voting, or early voting. It should stand to reason that in this election, it will take significantly longer than in the past to count and certify all of the votes. Typically, the winner of a presidential election is known either in the late evening of Election Day or early the following morning. That fact that it's now a week after Election Day, and the totals are not finalized, should come as a surprise to exactly no one.

Third, the numbers will out. Rhetoric, protests, objections, baseless (and fact-less) assertions of "massive voter fraud," and refusals to concede will prove irrelevant in favor of the numbers, first the certified state popular vote totals, and then the state electoral vote totals. The possibility of the Electoral Vote ending in a tie, or of neither candidate receiving the needed 270 electoral votes, is at this point so exceedingly remote -- and they will remain remote even if Trump does win Georgia -- that it's almost not worth even considering a contingent election in the House.

It won't be 1824 all over again. 

[Sweetums]

It won't be 1824 all over again. 

Thanks for the history lesson, MissB. I am reassured. One question: can there be a contingent election if one of the candidates gets a majority of the electoral votes?

[MissBarbara]

It won't be 1824 all over again. 

Thanks for the history lesson, MissB. I am reassured. One question: can there be a contingent election if one of the candidates gets a majority of the electoral votes?

The guy in the video implied that -- and he certainly knows what he's talking about -- but he didn't elaborate, and I don't see how that's possible.

A contingent election in the House occurs only if there's an electoral vote tie, or if neither candidate receives a simply majority of the total electoral votes cast.

The 1824 election was an anomaly, since there were four major candidates on the ballot, and, initially, all four candidates received electoral votes (Henry Clay initially received 37 electoral votes, but when the election went to the House, he "released" them and "gave them to Adams).

In this election, there are only two candidates who will receive electoral votes, Biden and Trump, so one of the two will receive a majority of the total electoral votes cast. Add to that, while math isn't my strong suit, even if Georgia and Arizona go to Trump, Biden will still have more than enough electoral votes to win. There can't be a tie.

On top of all of that, more and more GOP officials are bowing to the inevitable and urging Trump to allow the transition process to begin. PA Senator Pat Toomey said last night, "We're on a path where it looks likely Joe Biden is going to be the next president of the United States."

There is one extremely improbably situation that could occur, and which has never before happened in U.S. history.

On January 6, 2021, the electoral votes, which were cast by the state electors in their states on December 14, will be officially counted and a winner announced before a joint session of Congress. The members of Congress are there simply as part of the process. They do not certify or ratify the results, they simply witness the counting.

As the count proceeds -- and the votes are counted alphabetically in state order -- a member of Congress can object. If a member does so, he or she must first explain the reason for the objection, and then Congress as a whole has to vote whether or not to set aside that state vote to investigate the objection.

However, never in U.S. presidential election history has Congress voted to temporarily set aside a state’s electoral vote total for further investigation, and even if it did, only that one state’s vote -- and not the total vote -- would be set aside, to be revisited.

[watcher1]

Rumor has it that Trump is so mad at Fox News for calling Arizona for Biden that he is planning on starting a conservative television station to compete against and bury Fox News.

[Jed_]

Rumor has it that Trump is so mad at Fox News for calling Arizona for Biden that he is planning on starting a conservative television station to compete against and bury Fox News.

Read some articles today that many of the Trumptards are switching from Fox to Newsmax.  I only heard of Newsmax yesterday because the CEO was on CNN.  He came across as an idiot.

Apparently the vast majority of Newsmax’s commentary (and commentary is all they have) is focused on Trump winning the election.  The Trumptards are switching because they are mad Fox is suggesting otherwise in some (but not all) of their commentary.

In mid-January Trump will move his White House to Mar-a/lago and pretend he is still president and his new network will pretend this as well.  It will be a ‘government’ in exile.  He will never acknowledge he lost and will do his very best to further erode our democracy.

I wonder if joan has switched to Newsmax?

[MintJulie]

Rumor has it that Trump is so mad at Fox News for calling Arizona for Biden that he is planning on starting a conservative television station to compete against and bury Fox News.

....switching from Fox to Newsmax.  

Newsmax and OAN is what Dan saw in a comment section of an article he was reading.  

I've heard of OAN, Pres Trump would comment to them when they'd ask a question at a press conf,  "You're from OAN?  Good network.  Great network."

[_priapism]

loser.com

[_priapism]

[Jed_]

loser.com

soreloser.com

[Lois]

I think Jim Carrey should paint Trump's Presidential protrait.

[_priapism]

Washington Post:  More than 130 Secret Service officers are said to be infected with coronavirus or quarantining in wake of Trump’s campaign travel

[_priapism]

[Lois]

Trump continues to dispute the evidence so he can fleece his suporters by soliciting donations, in the meantime he's playing as much golf at his properties that he can so he can bill the taxpayers.

He's just a con-man and a grifter.

[_priapism]

President Donald Trump told an ally that he knows he lost, but that he is delaying the transition process and is aggressively trying to sow doubt about the election results in order to get back at Democrats for questioning the legitimacy of his own election in 2016, especially with the Russia investigation, a source familiar with the President's thinking told CNN on Thursday.

The President's refusal to concede, as CNN has previously reported, stems in part from his perceived grievance that Hillary Clinton and former President Barack Obama undermined his own presidency by saying Russia interfered in the 2016 election and could have impacted the outcome, people around him have said.

Trump continues to hold a grudge against those who he claims undercut his election by pointing to Russian interference efforts, and he has suggested it is fair game to not recognize Joe Biden as the President-elect, even though Clinton conceded on election night in 2016 and the Trump transition was able to begin immediately.

[msslave]

Rudy Giuliani, trump's personal attack dog, had a melt down at a recent press conference. No, I mean literally, he started to melt.

Rudy either used a really cheap hair dye, or he'd touched up his sideburns with some mascara that proceeded to run down his face.

The press conference was the usual crap...voter fraud, evidence...no we don't need no stink'n evidence.

The comedy of errors these clowns continue to exhibit makes me wonder why the country hasn't totally gone to heck.  Oh wait...it is headed that way.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8967203/Rudy-Giuliani-presents-evidence-massive-voting-fraud-bizarre-press-conference.html

[Jed_]