Arizona state representatives issued a call to withhold the state’s Electoral College votes for Joe Biden

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
88,957
Reaction score
21,487
Points
2,180
Location
in between
This election will separate the men from the boys. Those who are not willing to stand for their country and those who are.
Well, clearly the Trumpists are in the “not” category.
That would be wrong. Trump is in the super American category. Stands for American people and American values - which you disagree with, just a remainder.

It's fine to hate freedom, we don't. It built the best country and more improvement than in all of history prior. Freedom will always beat the hell out of leftist authoritarianism.
That is just...bizarre Norman....
The part about freedom building more progress than we had cumulatively before?

Nope, we went from mud huts to sky scrapers. It is the best.

Leftist authoritarianism is back to the mud huts again. The price of free shit isn't free, although it sure as hell includes freedom.
That isn’t where Trump is taking us.

Fascism made for great monuments and huge rallies...but not so good for dissidents.
This election will separate the men from the boys. Those who are not willing to stand for their country and those who are.
Well, clearly the Trumpists are in the “not” category.
wrong---but you clearly are a not
You conflate standing for their country with standing for Trump. The two are not the same.
 

Contumacious

Radical Freedom
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Messages
19,734
Reaction score
2,454
Points
280
Location
Adjuntas, PR , USA
Still on live.

Last witness on now;
As the counting of votes continues, an anti-democratic suggestion has taken hold among supporters of President Trump that Republican state legislatures could prevent a Biden presidency by directly appointing Trump-supporting electors to the Electoral College, rather than by sending a delegation of electors in line with their states’ popular votes. “GET READY TO DO YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY,” tweeted conservative radio host Mark Levin on Nov. 5. Soon after, Donald Trump, Jr., retweeted Levin. Later that night, Sen. Lindsey Graham joined the bandwagon. The idea is not entirely new: In September, Barton Gellman in The Atlantic reported that some state legislators were already considering this gambit—though Pennsylvania Republicans soon rejected the notion.

There are a host of clear legal problems with this suggestion, including that electors are required to be selected on Election Day, not later (absent circumstances not present here), and that due process requires a state to give effect to the fundamental right to vote for president. What’s more, such a move would justifiably be seen by much of the public as a coup. It is a terrible idea.

But even more fundamentally, the Supreme Court has unanimously undercut the core premise to this argument for legislative superpower. And we should know. We argued the opposite before the court this year, in the context of presidential electors, rather than state legislatures, going rogue—and we lost.


Thankfully, it appears very unlikely that any legislature will accept Mark Levin’s challenge, and select a slate contrary to the votes of its people. But if any legislature were to take up the call, the Supreme Court would be asked to review that unprecedented act. Its ruling should be clear that this move is illegal. Prominent originalist scholars have noted how far Chiafalo strayed from the framing design. It would be extraordinary now if, in the name of originalism, the justices would sanction an even greater perversion of the original design. The greatest charge against originalism is partisan selectivity. We do not believe that selectivity is inherent to originalism. But few would agree if, after ignoring the Framers in Chiafalo, the Supreme Court invoked the Framers now to defeat a candidate who has won an absolute majority of the public’s vote. Whatever else that result would say, it would certainly not communicate that “[w]e the people rule.”




Circular Reasoning Definition and Examples

In informal logic, circular reasoning is an argument that commits the logical fallacy of assuming what it is attempting to prove.


FIRST, you prove that Biden

" has won an absolute majority of the public’s vote"sans fraud

Then you arrive at a conclusion.


.
Az. and Pa. have certified their votes. Trumpybear's only hope is that enough unfaithful legislators in enough states that could overturn Biden's EC victory to try and bring the matter of dueling electors to the SC.

Totally incorrect. State Certification is irrelevant

From a Federal Constitutional standpoint >>>> A federal law (3 U.S. Code § 5) known as the “safe harbor provision” requires a state to settle disputes and determine its electors six days before the electoral college members meet in person. In 2020, that deadline is December 8, since the college votes on December 14, 2020

Each state may make decisions according to state law but If no candidate has 270 votes by December 8th, 2020 then the US House of Representatives will decide pursuant to the 12th Amendment.

Let me remind you that the US Representatives for the states that are being disputed are Republicans.
Certification is critical and all states should be certified the 8th, well ahead of the day the EC votes this time, the 14th.

AGAIN ALL DISPUTES MUST BE SETTLED BY DECEMBER 8th, 2020.

I seriously doubt that WE THE PEOPLE - 80,000,000 STRONG - WILL NOT DISPUTE THE RESULTS SINCE ALL COMPUTER GRAPHS ARE SHOWING


 

Toro

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2005
Messages
85,468
Reaction score
23,338
Points
2,180
Location
Surfing the Oceans of Liquidity
Still on live.

Last witness on now;
As the counting of votes continues, an anti-democratic suggestion has taken hold among supporters of President Trump that Republican state legislatures could prevent a Biden presidency by directly appointing Trump-supporting electors to the Electoral College, rather than by sending a delegation of electors in line with their states’ popular votes. “GET READY TO DO YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY,” tweeted conservative radio host Mark Levin on Nov. 5. Soon after, Donald Trump, Jr., retweeted Levin. Later that night, Sen. Lindsey Graham joined the bandwagon. The idea is not entirely new: In September, Barton Gellman in The Atlantic reported that some state legislators were already considering this gambit—though Pennsylvania Republicans soon rejected the notion.

There are a host of clear legal problems with this suggestion, including that electors are required to be selected on Election Day, not later (absent circumstances not present here), and that due process requires a state to give effect to the fundamental right to vote for president. What’s more, such a move would justifiably be seen by much of the public as a coup. It is a terrible idea.

But even more fundamentally, the Supreme Court has unanimously undercut the core premise to this argument for legislative superpower. And we should know. We argued the opposite before the court this year, in the context of presidential electors, rather than state legislatures, going rogue—and we lost.


Thankfully, it appears very unlikely that any legislature will accept Mark Levin’s challenge, and select a slate contrary to the votes of its people. But if any legislature were to take up the call, the Supreme Court would be asked to review that unprecedented act. Its ruling should be clear that this move is illegal. Prominent originalist scholars have noted how far Chiafalo strayed from the framing design. It would be extraordinary now if, in the name of originalism, the justices would sanction an even greater perversion of the original design. The greatest charge against originalism is partisan selectivity. We do not believe that selectivity is inherent to originalism. But few would agree if, after ignoring the Framers in Chiafalo, the Supreme Court invoked the Framers now to defeat a candidate who has won an absolute majority of the public’s vote. Whatever else that result would say, it would certainly not communicate that “[w]e the people rule.”




Circular Reasoning Definition and Examples

In informal logic, circular reasoning is an argument that commits the logical fallacy of assuming what it is attempting to prove.


FIRST, you prove that Biden

" has won an absolute majority of the public’s vote"sans fraud

Then you arrive at a conclusion.


.
Az. and Pa. have certified their votes. Trumpybear's only hope is that enough unfaithful legislators in enough states that could overturn Biden's EC victory to try and bring the matter of dueling electors to the SC.

Totally incorrect. State Certification is irrelevant

From a Federal Constitutional standpoint >>>> A federal law (3 U.S. Code § 5) known as the “safe harbor provision” requires a state to settle disputes and determine its electors six days before the electoral college members meet in person. In 2020, that deadline is December 8, since the college votes on December 14, 2020

Each state may make decisions according to state law but If no candidate has 270 votes by December 8th, 2020 then the US House of Representatives will decide pursuant to the 12th Amendment.

Let me remind you that the US Representatives for the states that are being disputed are Republicans.
Certification is critical and all states should be certified the 8th, well ahead of the day the EC votes this time, the 14th.

AGAIN ALL DISPUTES MUST BE SETTLED BY DECEMBER 8th, 2020.

I seriously doubt that WE THE PEOPLE - 80,000,000 STRONG - WILL NOT DISPUTE THE RESULTS SINCE ALL COMPUTER GRAPHS ARE SHOWING


Oh, I'm sure you'll dispute them, Lionel.

You're just not going to win any of them.

Because cult.
 

Rogue AI

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2020
Messages
846
Reaction score
1,035
Points
873
Location
Wisconsin
Momentum seems to be building, but Establishment RINO Cucks will probably just ignore it.

Arizona state representative Mark Finchem (district 11) on Monday issued a call to withhold the state’s Electoral College votes for Joe Biden because “he believes there is enough significant evidence of fraud to invalidate the state’s votes.”
President Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani and Trump campaign senior legal advisor Jenna Ellis appeared before Arizona state lawmakers in a public hearing on Monday.
The hearing was chaired by Representative Mark Finchem with a number of House and Senate members on the hearing panel.
Trump’s legal team brought out many credible witnesses again on Monday who testified on the Dominion voting machines and other irregularities that point to outright Democrat voter fraud.
TRENDING: Crowd Erupts in Cheers as Giuliani Tells AZ State Lawmakers: "Your Political Career is Worth Losing if You Can Save the Right to Vote in America" (VIDEO)
Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai presented very powerful data to Arizona lawmakers that completely obliterated the Biden victory narrative.
In the middle of the hearing on Monday, Arizona’s crooked Secretary of State certified the false election results.
It's against Arizona state law § 16-212 to withhold those votes...

A. On the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, 1956, and quadrennially thereafter, there shall be elected a number of presidential electors equal to the number of United States senators and representatives in Congress from this state.

B. After the secretary of state issues the statewide canvass containing the results of a presidential election, the presidential electors of this state shall cast their electoral college votes for the candidate for president and the candidate for vice president who jointly received the highest number of votes in this state as prescribed in the canvass.

And it's against Arizona state law § 16-212 to not cast an electoral college vote for the winner of the popular vote in their state...

C. A presidential elector who knowingly refuses to cast that elector's electoral college vote as prescribed in subsection B of this section is no longer eligible to hold the office of presidential elector and that office is deemed and declared vacant by operation of law.  The chairperson of the state committee of the political party represented by that elector shall appoint a person who is otherwise qualified to be a presidential elector.  The replacement presidential elector shall cast the elector's electoral college vote as prescribed by this section.  Notwithstanding § 16-344 and any other statute, the nomination paper and affidavit of qualification of the replacement presidential elector may be completed and filed with the secretary of state as soon as is practicable after the presidential elector's appointment.

So all you have is a Republican calling for break the law to help Impeached Trump win the election he lost in a landslide.
Didn't see you folks whining when election officials broke state election laws. You folks never miss an opportunity to be hypocrites.
Oh? What laws do you contend were broken?
Different laws in different states. Should be common knowledge at this point to anyone who did even cursory research on this election. Clearly you have not.
 

Contumacious

Radical Freedom
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Messages
19,734
Reaction score
2,454
Points
280
Location
Adjuntas, PR , USA
Still on live.

Last witness on now;
As the counting of votes continues, an anti-democratic suggestion has taken hold among supporters of President Trump that Republican state legislatures could prevent a Biden presidency by directly appointing Trump-supporting electors to the Electoral College, rather than by sending a delegation of electors in line with their states’ popular votes. “GET READY TO DO YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY,” tweeted conservative radio host Mark Levin on Nov. 5. Soon after, Donald Trump, Jr., retweeted Levin. Later that night, Sen. Lindsey Graham joined the bandwagon. The idea is not entirely new: In September, Barton Gellman in The Atlantic reported that some state legislators were already considering this gambit—though Pennsylvania Republicans soon rejected the notion.

There are a host of clear legal problems with this suggestion, including that electors are required to be selected on Election Day, not later (absent circumstances not present here), and that due process requires a state to give effect to the fundamental right to vote for president. What’s more, such a move would justifiably be seen by much of the public as a coup. It is a terrible idea.

But even more fundamentally, the Supreme Court has unanimously undercut the core premise to this argument for legislative superpower. And we should know. We argued the opposite before the court this year, in the context of presidential electors, rather than state legislatures, going rogue—and we lost.


Thankfully, it appears very unlikely that any legislature will accept Mark Levin’s challenge, and select a slate contrary to the votes of its people. But if any legislature were to take up the call, the Supreme Court would be asked to review that unprecedented act. Its ruling should be clear that this move is illegal. Prominent originalist scholars have noted how far Chiafalo strayed from the framing design. It would be extraordinary now if, in the name of originalism, the justices would sanction an even greater perversion of the original design. The greatest charge against originalism is partisan selectivity. We do not believe that selectivity is inherent to originalism. But few would agree if, after ignoring the Framers in Chiafalo, the Supreme Court invoked the Framers now to defeat a candidate who has won an absolute majority of the public’s vote. Whatever else that result would say, it would certainly not communicate that “[w]e the people rule.”




Circular Reasoning Definition and Examples

In informal logic, circular reasoning is an argument that commits the logical fallacy of assuming what it is attempting to prove.


FIRST, you prove that Biden

" has won an absolute majority of the public’s vote"sans fraud

Then you arrive at a conclusion.


.
Az. and Pa. have certified their votes. Trumpybear's only hope is that enough unfaithful legislators in enough states that could overturn Biden's EC victory to try and bring the matter of dueling electors to the SC.

Totally incorrect. State Certification is irrelevant

From a Federal Constitutional standpoint >>>> A federal law (3 U.S. Code § 5) known as the “safe harbor provision” requires a state to settle disputes and determine its electors six days before the electoral college members meet in person. In 2020, that deadline is December 8, since the college votes on December 14, 2020

Each state may make decisions according to state law but If no candidate has 270 votes by December 8th, 2020 then the US House of Representatives will decide pursuant to the 12th Amendment.

Let me remind you that the US Representatives for the states that are being disputed are Republicans.
Certification is critical and all states should be certified the 8th, well ahead of the day the EC votes this time, the 14th.

AGAIN ALL DISPUTES MUST BE SETTLED BY DECEMBER 8th, 2020.

I seriously doubt that WE THE PEOPLE - 80,000,000 STRONG - WILL NOT DISPUTE THE RESULTS SINCE ALL COMPUTER GRAPHS ARE SHOWING


Still on live.

Last witness on now;
As the counting of votes continues, an anti-democratic suggestion has taken hold among supporters of President Trump that Republican state legislatures could prevent a Biden presidency by directly appointing Trump-supporting electors to the Electoral College, rather than by sending a delegation of electors in line with their states’ popular votes. “GET READY TO DO YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY,” tweeted conservative radio host Mark Levin on Nov. 5. Soon after, Donald Trump, Jr., retweeted Levin. Later that night, Sen. Lindsey Graham joined the bandwagon. The idea is not entirely new: In September, Barton Gellman in The Atlantic reported that some state legislators were already considering this gambit—though Pennsylvania Republicans soon rejected the notion.

There are a host of clear legal problems with this suggestion, including that electors are required to be selected on Election Day, not later (absent circumstances not present here), and that due process requires a state to give effect to the fundamental right to vote for president. What’s more, such a move would justifiably be seen by much of the public as a coup. It is a terrible idea.

But even more fundamentally, the Supreme Court has unanimously undercut the core premise to this argument for legislative superpower. And we should know. We argued the opposite before the court this year, in the context of presidential electors, rather than state legislatures, going rogue—and we lost.


Thankfully, it appears very unlikely that any legislature will accept Mark Levin’s challenge, and select a slate contrary to the votes of its people. But if any legislature were to take up the call, the Supreme Court would be asked to review that unprecedented act. Its ruling should be clear that this move is illegal. Prominent originalist scholars have noted how far Chiafalo strayed from the framing design. It would be extraordinary now if, in the name of originalism, the justices would sanction an even greater perversion of the original design. The greatest charge against originalism is partisan selectivity. We do not believe that selectivity is inherent to originalism. But few would agree if, after ignoring the Framers in Chiafalo, the Supreme Court invoked the Framers now to defeat a candidate who has won an absolute majority of the public’s vote. Whatever else that result would say, it would certainly not communicate that “[w]e the people rule.”




Circular Reasoning Definition and Examples

In informal logic, circular reasoning is an argument that commits the logical fallacy of assuming what it is attempting to prove.


FIRST, you prove that Biden

" has won an absolute majority of the public’s vote"sans fraud

Then you arrive at a conclusion.


.
Az. and Pa. have certified their votes. Trumpybear's only hope is that enough unfaithful legislators in enough states that could overturn Biden's EC victory to try and bring the matter of dueling electors to the SC.

Totally incorrect. State Certification is irrelevant

From a Federal Constitutional standpoint >>>> A federal law (3 U.S. Code § 5) known as the “safe harbor provision” requires a state to settle disputes and determine its electors six days before the electoral college members meet in person. In 2020, that deadline is December 8, since the college votes on December 14, 2020

Each state may make decisions according to state law but If no candidate has 270 votes by December 8th, 2020 then the US House of Representatives will decide pursuant to the 12th Amendment.

Let me remind you that the US Representatives for the states that are being disputed are Republicans.
Certification is critical and all states should be certified the 8th, well ahead of the day the EC votes this time, the 14th.

AGAIN ALL DISPUTES MUST BE SETTLED BY DECEMBER 8th, 2020.

I seriously doubt that WE THE PEOPLE - 80,000,000 STRONG - WILL NOT DISPUTE THE RESULTS SINCE ALL COMPUTER GRAPHS ARE SHOWING


Oh, I'm sure you'll dispute them, Lionel.

You're just not going to win any of them.

Because cult.

Yes we are.

Your boy is NOT going to get 270 EC votes.

The matter will be presented to the US House of Representatives .

The US Representatives for the states that are being disputed are all Republicans.

The Honorable Donald J Trump will reside in the whitehouse until January 2024.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.


.
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
72,245
Reaction score
13,354
Points
2,210
Momentum seems to be building, but Establishment RINO Cucks will probably just ignore it.

Arizona state representative Mark Finchem (district 11) on Monday issued a call to withhold theno wirries state’s Electoral College votes for Joe Biden because “he believes there is enough significant evidence of fraud to invalidate the state’s votes.”
President Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani and Trump campaign senior legal advisor Jenna Ellis appeared before Arizona state lawmakers in a public hearing on Monday.
The hearing was chaired by Representative Mark Finchem with a number of House and Senate members on the hearing panel.
Trump’s legal team brought out many credible witnesses again on Monday who testified on the Dominion voting machines and other irregularities that point to outright Democrat voter fraud.
TRENDING: Crowd Erupts in Cheers as Giuliani Tells AZ State Lawmakers: "Your Political Career is Worth Losing if You Can Save the Right to Vote in America" (VIDEO)
Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai presented very powerful data to Arizona lawmakers that completely obliterated the Biden victory narrative.
In the middle of the hearing on Monday, Arizona’s crooked Secretary of State certified the false election results.
It's against Arizona state law § 16-212 to withhold those votes...

A. On the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, 1956, and quadrennially thereafter, there shall be elected a number of presidential electors equal to the number of United States senators and representatives in Congress from this state.

B. After the secretary of state issues the statewide canvass containing the results of a presidential election, the presidential electors of this state shall cast their electoral college votes for the candidate for president and the candidate for vice president who jointly received the highest number of votes in this state as prescribed in the canvass.

And it's against Arizona state law § 16-212 to not cast an electoral college vote for the winner of the popular vote in their state...

C. A presidential elector who knowingly refuses to cast that elector's electoral college vote as prescribed in subsection B of this section is no longer eligible to hold the office of presidential elector and that office is deemed and declared vacant by operation of law.  The chairperson of the state committee of the political party represented by that elector shall appoint a person who is otherwise qualified to be a presidential elector.  The replacement presidential elector shall cast the elector's electoral college vote as prescribed by this section.  Notwithstanding § 16-344 and any other statute, the nomination paper and affidavit of qualification of the replacement presidential elector may be completed and filed with the secretary of state as soon as is practicable after the presidential elector's appointment.

So all you have is a Republican calling for break the law to help Impeached Trump win the election he lost in a landslide.
Didn't see you folks whining when election officials broke state election laws. You folks never miss an opportunity to be hypocrites.
Oh? What laws do you contend were broken?
Different laws in different states. Should be common knowledge at this point to anyone who did even cursory research on this election. Clearly you have not.
No worries, I didn't expect you could cite any. Thanks for confirming what I already suspected.
 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
121,016
Reaction score
21,186
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
Still on live.

Last witness on now;
As the counting of votes continues, an anti-democratic suggestion has taken hold among supporters of President Trump that Republican state legislatures could prevent a Biden presidency by directly appointing Trump-supporting electors to the Electoral College, rather than by sending a delegation of electors in line with their states’ popular votes. “GET READY TO DO YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY,” tweeted conservative radio host Mark Levin on Nov. 5. Soon after, Donald Trump, Jr., retweeted Levin. Later that night, Sen. Lindsey Graham joined the bandwagon. The idea is not entirely new: In September, Barton Gellman in The Atlantic reported that some state legislators were already considering this gambit—though Pennsylvania Republicans soon rejected the notion.

There are a host of clear legal problems with this suggestion, including that electors are required to be selected on Election Day, not later (absent circumstances not present here), and that due process requires a state to give effect to the fundamental right to vote for president. What’s more, such a move would justifiably be seen by much of the public as a coup. It is a terrible idea.

But even more fundamentally, the Supreme Court has unanimously undercut the core premise to this argument for legislative superpower. And we should know. We argued the opposite before the court this year, in the context of presidential electors, rather than state legislatures, going rogue—and we lost.


Thankfully, it appears very unlikely that any legislature will accept Mark Levin’s challenge, and select a slate contrary to the votes of its people. But if any legislature were to take up the call, the Supreme Court would be asked to review that unprecedented act. Its ruling should be clear that this move is illegal. Prominent originalist scholars have noted how far Chiafalo strayed from the framing design. It would be extraordinary now if, in the name of originalism, the justices would sanction an even greater perversion of the original design. The greatest charge against originalism is partisan selectivity. We do not believe that selectivity is inherent to originalism. But few would agree if, after ignoring the Framers in Chiafalo, the Supreme Court invoked the Framers now to defeat a candidate who has won an absolute majority of the public’s vote. Whatever else that result would say, it would certainly not communicate that “[w]e the people rule.”




Circular Reasoning Definition and Examples

In informal logic, circular reasoning is an argument that commits the logical fallacy of assuming what it is attempting to prove.


FIRST, you prove that Biden

" has won an absolute majority of the public’s vote"sans fraud

Then you arrive at a conclusion.


.
Az. and Pa. have certified their votes. Trumpybear's only hope is that enough unfaithful legislators in enough states that could overturn Biden's EC victory to try and bring the matter of dueling electors to the SC.

Totally incorrect. State Certification is irrelevant

From a Federal Constitutional standpoint >>>> A federal law (3 U.S. Code § 5) known as the “safe harbor provision” requires a state to settle disputes and determine its electors six days before the electoral college members meet in person. In 2020, that deadline is December 8, since the college votes on December 14, 2020

Each state may make decisions according to state law but If no candidate has 270 votes by December 8th, 2020 then the US House of Representatives will decide pursuant to the 12th Amendment.

Let me remind you that the US Representatives for the states that are being disputed are Republicans.
Certification is critical and all states should be certified the 8th, well ahead of the day the EC votes this time, the 14th.

AGAIN ALL DISPUTES MUST BE SETTLED BY DECEMBER 8th, 2020.

I seriously doubt that WE THE PEOPLE - 80,000,000 STRONG - WILL NOT DISPUTE THE RESULTS SINCE ALL COMPUTER GRAPHS ARE SHOWING


How could you post "80 million are showing "Biden" ---- and get EVERY LETTER WRONG?
 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
121,016
Reaction score
21,186
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
This election will separate the men from the boys. Those who are not willing to stand for their country and those who are.
Well, clearly the Trumpists are in the “not” category.
That would be wrong. Trump is in the super American category. Stands for American people and American values - which you disagree with, just a remainder.

It's fine to hate freedom, we don't. It built the best country and more improvement than in all of history prior. Freedom will always beat the hell out of leftist authoritarianism.
That is just...bizarre Norman....
The part about freedom building more progress than we had cumulatively before?

Nope, we went from mud huts to sky scrapers. It is the best.

Leftist authoritarianism is back to the mud huts again. The price of free shit isn't free, although it sure as hell includes freedom.
That isn’t where Trump is taking us.

Fascism made for great monuments and huge rallies...but not so good for dissidents.
This election will separate the men from the boys. Those who are not willing to stand for their country and those who are.
Well, clearly the Trumpists are in the “not” category.
wrong---but you clearly are a not
You conflate standing for their country with standing for Trump. The two are not the same.
Indeed they are polar opposites.
 

Rogue AI

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2020
Messages
846
Reaction score
1,035
Points
873
Location
Wisconsin
Momentum seems to be building, but Establishment RINO Cucks will probably just ignore it.

Arizona state representative Mark Finchem (district 11) on Monday issued a call to withhold theno wirries state’s Electoral College votes for Joe Biden because “he believes there is enough significant evidence of fraud to invalidate the state’s votes.”
President Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani and Trump campaign senior legal advisor Jenna Ellis appeared before Arizona state lawmakers in a public hearing on Monday.
The hearing was chaired by Representative Mark Finchem with a number of House and Senate members on the hearing panel.
Trump’s legal team brought out many credible witnesses again on Monday who testified on the Dominion voting machines and other irregularities that point to outright Democrat voter fraud.
TRENDING: Crowd Erupts in Cheers as Giuliani Tells AZ State Lawmakers: "Your Political Career is Worth Losing if You Can Save the Right to Vote in America" (VIDEO)
Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai presented very powerful data to Arizona lawmakers that completely obliterated the Biden victory narrative.
In the middle of the hearing on Monday, Arizona’s crooked Secretary of State certified the false election results.
It's against Arizona state law § 16-212 to withhold those votes...

A. On the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, 1956, and quadrennially thereafter, there shall be elected a number of presidential electors equal to the number of United States senators and representatives in Congress from this state.

B. After the secretary of state issues the statewide canvass containing the results of a presidential election, the presidential electors of this state shall cast their electoral college votes for the candidate for president and the candidate for vice president who jointly received the highest number of votes in this state as prescribed in the canvass.

And it's against Arizona state law § 16-212 to not cast an electoral college vote for the winner of the popular vote in their state...

C. A presidential elector who knowingly refuses to cast that elector's electoral college vote as prescribed in subsection B of this section is no longer eligible to hold the office of presidential elector and that office is deemed and declared vacant by operation of law.  The chairperson of the state committee of the political party represented by that elector shall appoint a person who is otherwise qualified to be a presidential elector.  The replacement presidential elector shall cast the elector's electoral college vote as prescribed by this section.  Notwithstanding § 16-344 and any other statute, the nomination paper and affidavit of qualification of the replacement presidential elector may be completed and filed with the secretary of state as soon as is practicable after the presidential elector's appointment.

So all you have is a Republican calling for break the law to help Impeached Trump win the election he lost in a landslide.
Didn't see you folks whining when election officials broke state election laws. You folks never miss an opportunity to be hypocrites.
Oh? What laws do you contend were broken?
Different laws in different states. Should be common knowledge at this point to anyone who did even cursory research on this election. Clearly you have not.
No worries, I didn't expect you could cite any. Thanks for confirming what I already suspected.
I'm not here to tutor you in current events. Wallow in your ignorance, seems your natural state.
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
72,245
Reaction score
13,354
Points
2,210
Momentum seems to be building, but Establishment RINO Cucks will probably just ignore it.

Arizona state representative Mark Finchem (district 11) on Monday issued a call to withhold theno wirries state’s Electoral College votes for Joe Biden because “he believes there is enough significant evidence of fraud to invalidate the state’s votes.”
President Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani and Trump campaign senior legal advisor Jenna Ellis appeared before Arizona state lawmakers in a public hearing on Monday.
The hearing was chaired by Representative Mark Finchem with a number of House and Senate members on the hearing panel.
Trump’s legal team brought out many credible witnesses again on Monday who testified on the Dominion voting machines and other irregularities that point to outright Democrat voter fraud.
TRENDING: Crowd Erupts in Cheers as Giuliani Tells AZ State Lawmakers: "Your Political Career is Worth Losing if You Can Save the Right to Vote in America" (VIDEO)
Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai presented very powerful data to Arizona lawmakers that completely obliterated the Biden victory narrative.
In the middle of the hearing on Monday, Arizona’s crooked Secretary of State certified the false election results.
It's against Arizona state law § 16-212 to withhold those votes...

A. On the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, 1956, and quadrennially thereafter, there shall be elected a number of presidential electors equal to the number of United States senators and representatives in Congress from this state.

B. After the secretary of state issues the statewide canvass containing the results of a presidential election, the presidential electors of this state shall cast their electoral college votes for the candidate for president and the candidate for vice president who jointly received the highest number of votes in this state as prescribed in the canvass.

And it's against Arizona state law § 16-212 to not cast an electoral college vote for the winner of the popular vote in their state...

C. A presidential elector who knowingly refuses to cast that elector's electoral college vote as prescribed in subsection B of this section is no longer eligible to hold the office of presidential elector and that office is deemed and declared vacant by operation of law.  The chairperson of the state committee of the political party represented by that elector shall appoint a person who is otherwise qualified to be a presidential elector.  The replacement presidential elector shall cast the elector's electoral college vote as prescribed by this section.  Notwithstanding § 16-344 and any other statute, the nomination paper and affidavit of qualification of the replacement presidential elector may be completed and filed with the secretary of state as soon as is practicable after the presidential elector's appointment.

So all you have is a Republican calling for break the law to help Impeached Trump win the election he lost in a landslide.
Didn't see you folks whining when election officials broke state election laws. You folks never miss an opportunity to be hypocrites.
Oh? What laws do you contend were broken?
Different laws in different states. Should be common knowledge at this point to anyone who did even cursory research on this election. Clearly you have not.
No worries, I didn't expect you could cite any. Thanks for confirming what I already suspected.
I'm not here to tutor you in current events. Wallow in your ignorance, seems your natural state.
LOL

The ignorance is all yours, claiming there are crimes you can't cite. It's not my problem you think others are as stupid as you.

:abgg2q.jpg:
 

Rogue AI

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2020
Messages
846
Reaction score
1,035
Points
873
Location
Wisconsin
Momentum seems to be building, but Establishment RINO Cucks will probably just ignore it.

Arizona state representative Mark Finchem (district 11) on Monday issued a call to withhold theno wirries state’s Electoral College votes for Joe Biden because “he believes there is enough significant evidence of fraud to invalidate the state’s votes.”
President Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani and Trump campaign senior legal advisor Jenna Ellis appeared before Arizona state lawmakers in a public hearing on Monday.
The hearing was chaired by Representative Mark Finchem with a number of House and Senate members on the hearing panel.
Trump’s legal team brought out many credible witnesses again on Monday who testified on the Dominion voting machines and other irregularities that point to outright Democrat voter fraud.
TRENDING: Crowd Erupts in Cheers as Giuliani Tells AZ State Lawmakers: "Your Political Career is Worth Losing if You Can Save the Right to Vote in America" (VIDEO)
Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai presented very powerful data to Arizona lawmakers that completely obliterated the Biden victory narrative.
In the middle of the hearing on Monday, Arizona’s crooked Secretary of State certified the false election results.
It's against Arizona state law § 16-212 to withhold those votes...

A. On the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, 1956, and quadrennially thereafter, there shall be elected a number of presidential electors equal to the number of United States senators and representatives in Congress from this state.

B. After the secretary of state issues the statewide canvass containing the results of a presidential election, the presidential electors of this state shall cast their electoral college votes for the candidate for president and the candidate for vice president who jointly received the highest number of votes in this state as prescribed in the canvass.

And it's against Arizona state law § 16-212 to not cast an electoral college vote for the winner of the popular vote in their state...

C. A presidential elector who knowingly refuses to cast that elector's electoral college vote as prescribed in subsection B of this section is no longer eligible to hold the office of presidential elector and that office is deemed and declared vacant by operation of law.  The chairperson of the state committee of the political party represented by that elector shall appoint a person who is otherwise qualified to be a presidential elector.  The replacement presidential elector shall cast the elector's electoral college vote as prescribed by this section.  Notwithstanding § 16-344 and any other statute, the nomination paper and affidavit of qualification of the replacement presidential elector may be completed and filed with the secretary of state as soon as is practicable after the presidential elector's appointment.

So all you have is a Republican calling for break the law to help Impeached Trump win the election he lost in a landslide.
Didn't see you folks whining when election officials broke state election laws. You folks never miss an opportunity to be hypocrites.
Oh? What laws do you contend were broken?
Different laws in different states. Should be common knowledge at this point to anyone who did even cursory research on this election. Clearly you have not.
No worries, I didn't expect you could cite any. Thanks for confirming what I already suspected.
I'm not here to tutor you in current events. Wallow in your ignorance, seems your natural state.
LOL

The ignorance is all yours, claiming there are crimes you can't cite. It's not my problem you think others are as stupid as you.

:abgg2q.jpg:
Lazy and ignorant. If I feel like posting the evidence, it only be after you make even bigger ass of yourself.
 

my2¢

So it goes
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
10,459
Reaction score
2,289
Points
290
Location
State 48
You Republicans need to make up your minds! Looking back at the comment made by our Arizona Attorney General.....

AG Brnovich Applauds U.S. Supreme Court Ruling Upholding Faithless Elector Law

Monday, July 6, 2020
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 9-0 today, upholding the authority of states to bind presidential electors to the state's popular vote when casting their Electoral College ballots. The case involved combined legal challenges from Colorado and Washington where both states removed or sanctioned rogue "faithless" electors who defied the will of the state's voters by voting for another candidate during the 2016 presidential election.

"Today's ruling is about respecting the will of the voters," said Attorney General Mark Brnovich. "Our elections must never be thrust into chaos by rogue actors failing to carry out their responsibilities. Respecting the authority of states to bind presidential electors to the will of the voters is a big victory for Arizona and our country."

AG Brnovich Applauds U.S. Supreme Court Ruling Upholding Faithless Elector Law | Arizona Attorney General (azag.gov)
 

skye

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
40,859
Reaction score
24,481
Points
2,635
Momentum seems to be building, but Establishment RINO Cucks will probably just ignore it.

Arizona state representative Mark Finchem (district 11) on Monday issued a call to withhold the state’s Electoral College votes for Joe Biden because “he believes there is enough significant evidence of fraud to invalidate the state’s votes.”
President Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani and Trump campaign senior legal advisor Jenna Ellis appeared before Arizona state lawmakers in a public hearing on Monday.
The hearing was chaired by Representative Mark Finchem with a number of House and Senate members on the hearing panel.
Trump’s legal team brought out many credible witnesses again on Monday who testified on the Dominion voting machines and other irregularities that point to outright Democrat voter fraud.
TRENDING: Crowd Erupts in Cheers as Giuliani Tells AZ State Lawmakers: "Your Political Career is Worth Losing if You Can Save the Right to Vote in America" (VIDEO)
Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai presented very powerful data to Arizona lawmakers that completely obliterated the Biden victory narrative.
In the middle of the hearing on Monday, Arizona’s crooked Secretary of State certified the false election results.
Oops!!!
First the dog attacks Joe, now this....Looks like it is going to be a bark winter....

I know.................lol............. :auiqs.jpg: ....the same dog that ate his homework!

very bark winter indeed!:laugh:
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
72,245
Reaction score
13,354
Points
2,210
Momentum seems to be building, but Establishment RINO Cucks will probably just ignore it.

Arizona state representative Mark Finchem (district 11) on Monday issued a call to withhold theno wirries state’s Electoral College votes for Joe Biden because “he believes there is enough significant evidence of fraud to invalidate the state’s votes.”
President Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani and Trump campaign senior legal advisor Jenna Ellis appeared before Arizona state lawmakers in a public hearing on Monday.
The hearing was chaired by Representative Mark Finchem with a number of House and Senate members on the hearing panel.
Trump’s legal team brought out many credible witnesses again on Monday who testified on the Dominion voting machines and other irregularities that point to outright Democrat voter fraud.
TRENDING: Crowd Erupts in Cheers as Giuliani Tells AZ State Lawmakers: "Your Political Career is Worth Losing if You Can Save the Right to Vote in America" (VIDEO)
Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai presented very powerful data to Arizona lawmakers that completely obliterated the Biden victory narrative.
In the middle of the hearing on Monday, Arizona’s crooked Secretary of State certified the false election results.
It's against Arizona state law § 16-212 to withhold those votes...

A. On the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, 1956, and quadrennially thereafter, there shall be elected a number of presidential electors equal to the number of United States senators and representatives in Congress from this state.

B. After the secretary of state issues the statewide canvass containing the results of a presidential election, the presidential electors of this state shall cast their electoral college votes for the candidate for president and the candidate for vice president who jointly received the highest number of votes in this state as prescribed in the canvass.

And it's against Arizona state law § 16-212 to not cast an electoral college vote for the winner of the popular vote in their state...

C. A presidential elector who knowingly refuses to cast that elector's electoral college vote as prescribed in subsection B of this section is no longer eligible to hold the office of presidential elector and that office is deemed and declared vacant by operation of law.  The chairperson of the state committee of the political party represented by that elector shall appoint a person who is otherwise qualified to be a presidential elector.  The replacement presidential elector shall cast the elector's electoral college vote as prescribed by this section.  Notwithstanding § 16-344 and any other statute, the nomination paper and affidavit of qualification of the replacement presidential elector may be completed and filed with the secretary of state as soon as is practicable after the presidential elector's appointment.

So all you have is a Republican calling for break the law to help Impeached Trump win the election he lost in a landslide.
Didn't see you folks whining when election officials broke state election laws. You folks never miss an opportunity to be hypocrites.
Oh? What laws do you contend were broken?
Different laws in different states. Should be common knowledge at this point to anyone who did even cursory research on this election. Clearly you have not.
No worries, I didn't expect you could cite any. Thanks for confirming what I already suspected.
I'm not here to tutor you in current events. Wallow in your ignorance, seems your natural state.
LOL

The ignorance is all yours, claiming there are crimes you can't cite. It's not my problem you think others are as stupid as you.

:abgg2q.jpg:
Lazy and ignorant. If I feel like posting the evidence, it only be after you make even bigger ass of yourself.
LOLOL

Like your infantile bluff, you are a failure. Case in point, everyone here sees I levied an example of a Republican calling to break the law and not only did I cite the law he seeks to break, I posted the law and a link to it. In stark contrast, you cried others broke some law you can't seem to name. And now here I am, drinking your tears.

Cheers

 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top