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

Dana7360

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2014
Messages
11,154
Reaction score
7,066
Points
1,055
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.


One person calling to do something is extremely different from it actually being done.

Meanwhile, here in reality, the governor of Arizona certified the votes in Arizona giving all their electoral votes to Biden.

What you posted means nothing. It does nothing. It's absolutely worthless.

Biden won the electoral votes in Arizona and there is absolutely nothing you or anyone can do about it.

Biden will be sworn in as president on January 20th and there is nothing you or anyone can do to stop it.

Deal with it.

Loser.
 

citygator

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2019
Messages
3,211
Reaction score
2,226
Points
940
Location
Charlotte
Y A W N. How many empty threats do I have to sit through?
Do you think it's an empty threat because they won't do it or because they can't do it legally?

They most certainly can do it within the letter of the law
Empty as in baseless. Trump is basically throwing shit onto a wall. The wall won’t move cuz it’s built on truth. It’ll get stinky but shit doesn’t knock down a wall.
 

Norman

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
31,256
Reaction score
15,062
Points
1,590
Y A W N. How many empty threats do I have to sit through?
Do you think it's an empty threat because they won't do it or because they can't do it legally?

They most certainly can do it within the letter of the law
Empty as in baseless. Trump is basically throwing shit onto a wall. The wall won’t move cuz it’s built on truth. It’ll get stinky but shit doesn’t knock down a wall.
There is nothing baseless about the accusation.

More of plugging the ears and screaming lalala, as expected.

In 2016 you were probably screaming and seething about Russia. There was no evidence, yet we still investigated it. Here there is plenty of evidence and we are supposed to look the other way? Never going to happen.
 

toobfreak

Tungsten/Glass Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2017
Messages
33,919
Reaction score
18,424
Points
1,915
Location
On The Way Home To Earth
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.
Wow, I'm surprised after his theories and claims seemingly fell apart here without too much effort that this Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai would still be out there peddling his analysis! I bet flacaltenn would be interested to read the article. I wonder if his formulas have changed?
Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai ?

Can you supply a link to this supposed rebutal?

SUPPOSED? Where were you for the nearly 80 post dissection of this guy's statistical model? I'd say flacaltenn fairly tore his claims a new asshole and I made a few contributions as well. Hopefully the Arizona lawmakers aren't as adept at statistical analysis or this Shiva guy has better data and model now, as we were not impressed.

With all the irregularities and impossibilities in this election and it now being almost a MONTH since, it is very frustrating that so far, I don't see anyone PROVING much of anything that would carry much weight in a court of law!

Surely that says something about either our elections, our courts, and / or the evidence.

 
OP
JimBowie1958

JimBowie1958

Old Fogey
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
63,590
Reaction score
16,615
Points
2,220
SUPPOSED? Where were you for the nearly 80 post dissection of this guy's statistical model? I'd say flacaltenn fairly tore his claims a new asshole and I made a few contributions as well. Hopefully the Arizona lawmakers aren't as adept at statistical analysis or this Shiva guy has better data and model now, as we were not impressed.
I have a real life, nor do I feel it imperative to have a universal knowledge of everything anyone has ever said about the data, dear.

With all the irregularities and impossibilities in this election and it now being almost a MONTH since, it is very frustrating that so far, I don't see anyone PROVING much of anything that would carry much weight in a court of law!
It is already established in CASE LAW that a governor nor state's SoS may change the electoral laws, and to do so invalidates the election. The changes MUST come from the legislatures.

Surely that says something about either our elections, our courts, and / or the evidence.
It says you don't want to know, I guess as the facts are out there.

Thanks, I will look into this thread and comment later.

But you presenting a thread link is not the same thing as providing evidence in a DIFFERENT discussion. Your 'debate' is not authoritative in and of itself and you *should* summarize ti with links to the key data yourself and not just say 'go rea this humongous thread'.
 

toobfreak

Tungsten/Glass Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2017
Messages
33,919
Reaction score
18,424
Points
1,915
Location
On The Way Home To Earth
It is already established in CASE LAW that a governor nor state's SoS may change the electoral laws, and to do so invalidates the election. The changes MUST come from the legislatures.
And therein lies the rub, Jim, our courts and election professionals seem to have "suspended" normal legal rerquirements and procedures much like our governors have for Covid.

Your 'debate' is not authoritative in and of itself and you *should* summarize ti with links to the key data yourself and not just say 'go rea this humongous thread'.
You really need to look through the thread to understand. Basically what Flacaltenn proves is that the algorithms used by Shiva are self-defeating, based on wrong assumptions, and CREATE the very anomalies in the data he's attempting to use as proof of vote flipping.

If you watch the video and follow Flac's math, especially near the beginning and end of the thread, you'll see his point. There is no easy way to summarize it all, far easier to just look for yourself as you're going to have to read the thread anyway to grasp the gist.
 
OP
JimBowie1958

JimBowie1958

Old Fogey
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
63,590
Reaction score
16,615
Points
2,220
It is already established in CASE LAW that a governor nor state's SoS may change the electoral laws, and to do so invalidates the election. The changes MUST come from the legislatures.
And therein lies the rub, Jim, our courts and election professionals seem to have "suspended" normal legal rerquirements and procedures much like our governors have for Covid.
And I think SCOTUS will throw out the votes allowed by unconstitutional changes in the law, as CASE LAW is entirely 100% that such votes should be thrown out.

Your 'debate' is not authoritative in and of itself and you *should* summarize ti with links to the key data yourself and not just say 'go rea this humongous thread'.
You really need to look through the thread to understand. Basically what Flacaltenn proves is that the algorithms used by Shiva are self-defeating, based on wrong assumptions, and CREATE the very anomalies in the data he's attempting to use as proof of vote flipping.
If you watch the video and follow Flac's math, especially near the beginning and end of the thread, you'll see his point. There is no easy way to summarize it all, far easier to just look for yourself as you're going to have to read the thread anyway to grasp the gist.
Yeah, I am digging into it now, and cross checking about this MIT analysis on the web, but I found some sites that do discuss it, but it is pretty partisan.

Right now, my bias is that I expect the MIT team of analysts to be correct, and something was lost in their presentation, which is horrid. They use the same variable references for different things in different comparisons, YIKES! If they wrote my data dictionary like that I think I would shoot them. Literally, shoot them and assume it would be a justifiable homicide in court.

But to rid myself of the bias, I am trying to understand Flacals argument and definitions as well, and so I will likely ask some questions.

I hope you don't mind indulging my questions, I know it is a pain to reinvent the wheel, but I want to make sure I am not building a straw man.
 

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
89,011
Reaction score
21,543
Points
2,180
Location
in between
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.


.
Finally, a refreshing breath of honesty! Republicans really are trying to overturn our electoral system and make us a Banana Republic. Stay tuned for Chapter 3 of New Age Fascism: Trump 2030 (don't bother to vote).
 

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
89,011
Reaction score
21,543
Points
2,180
Location
in between
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.
There is no evidence, as court after court has thrown out the lawsuits.
 

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
89,011
Reaction score
21,543
Points
2,180
Location
in between
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.”
Except the SCOTUS can't rule against the constitution and it states that state legislatures CAN determine the electors for an election.

Specifically:

Article II of the U.S. Constitution leaves decisions about how electors will be chosen to state legislatures: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress."

The court has declared that states have the right to take back the choice of electors from the people.


Postelection changes of the kind Trump is apparently contemplating would cause confusion around two federal laws that directly contradict each other.

One law requires electors to be appointed on Election Day itself. But all states abide by another law, the Electoral Count Act, passed in 1887, which gives states up to 41 days after Election Day to designate their slate of electors. The conflict between these laws provides fertile ground for litigation.


Sounds like the Republicans will do anything to stay in power.
 

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
89,011
Reaction score
21,543
Points
2,180
Location
in between
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)
Having the State Legislature dismiss the election results as irretrievably corrupted and void is not the same thing as an EC delegate voting for someone other than who they have been instructed and pledged to vote for.

:rolleyes:
It's actually worse. A political party in power loses the presidential election, is unable to overturn it in the courts (no evidence), then overturns it politically in order to install their candidate.
 

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
89,011
Reaction score
21,543
Points
2,180
Location
in between
Y A W N. How many empty threats do I have to sit through?
Do you think it's an empty threat because they won't do it or because they can't do it legally?

They most certainly can do it within the letter of the law
Empty as in baseless. Trump is basically throwing shit onto a wall. The wall won’t move cuz it’s built on truth. It’ll get stinky but shit doesn’t knock down a wall.
There is nothing baseless about the accusation.

More of plugging the ears and screaming lalala, as expected.

In 2016 you were probably screaming and seething about Russia. There was no evidence, yet we still investigated it. Here there is plenty of evidence and we are supposed to look the other way? Never going to happen.
In 2016 we accepted the results of the election as legitimate, and we called Trump President-Elect.
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
72,245
Reaction score
13,358
Points
2,210
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.


.
Finally, a refreshing breath of honesty! Republicans really are trying to overturn our electoral system and make us a Banana Republic. Stay tuned for Chapter 3 of New Age Fascism: Trump 2030 (don't bother to vote).
If they pull it off, I see only two potential remedies. Secession and/or civil war.
 

Skylar

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2014
Messages
39,714
Reaction score
7,026
Points
1,130
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.
Okay. An obscure state legislator said something.
 

Rogue AI

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2020
Messages
850
Reaction score
1,040
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.
There is no evidence, as court after court has thrown out the lawsuits.
There is plenty. The most obvious is state election officials violating state election laws in almost every swing state. It's all black letter law. Either we are a nation of laws or we aren't.
 

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
89,011
Reaction score
21,543
Points
2,180
Location
in between
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.
There is no evidence, as court after court has thrown out the lawsuits.
There is plenty. The most obvious is state election officials violating state election laws in almost every swing state. It's all black letter law. Either we are a nation of laws or we aren't.
Court after court has rejected it. Judges have included Trump appointees.

We are a nation of laws.

Not trial by public opinion.
 

Rogue AI

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2020
Messages
850
Reaction score
1,040
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.
There is no evidence, as court after court has thrown out the lawsuits.
There is plenty. The most obvious is state election officials violating state election laws in almost every swing state. It's all black letter law. Either we are a nation of laws or we aren't.
Court after court has rejected it. Judges have included Trump appointees.

We are a nation of laws.

Not trial by public opinion.
The violations in election laws isn't in question, it's tying votes to those violations that is. It's a rather unreasonable burden when the underlying issue is open for all to see.
 

BlindBoo

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Messages
35,424
Reaction score
5,144
Points
1,130
Except the SCOTUS can't rule against the constitution and it states that state legislatures CAN determine the electors for an election.
The state legislatures have already determined that the electors are bound to the states popular vote.

They can't change the law after they lose an election. They could change it before the election.
 

Juicin

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2016
Messages
2,732
Reaction score
733
Points
140
Y A W N. How many empty threats do I have to sit through?
Do you think it's an empty threat because they won't do it or because they can't do it legally?

They most certainly can do it within the letter of the law
Empty as in baseless. Trump is basically throwing shit onto a wall. The wall won’t move cuz it’s built on truth. It’ll get stinky but shit doesn’t knock down a wall.
There is nothing baseless about the accusation.

More of plugging the ears and screaming lalala, as expected.

In 2016 you were probably screaming and seething about Russia. There was no evidence, yet we still investigated it. Here there is plenty of evidence and we are supposed to look the other way? Never going to happen.
In 2016 we accepted the results of the election as legitimate, and we called Trump President-Elect.
If by accept you mean produce commercials trying to pressure electors not to vote for him sure....That and fabricate lies about Russians

Stacey Abrams still claiming she should be governor of Georgia lol




 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top