Crepitus
Diamond Member
- Mar 28, 2018
- 94,017
- 134,845
- 3,615
TWO WAYS Trump could still win
- Thread starter emilynghiem
- Start date
emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
- Thread starter
- #22
FB post based on a Constitutional Attorney who is a professor at UM Law....
"This is going to the Supreme Court.
Where they can easily rule that the election is invalid due to fraud or mistakes on a country wide scale.
It will go one of two ways, either they will rule that all the unconstitutional mail in ballots will be removed and the states ordered to recount without them or they will simply rule the election is invalid due to mass voter fraud and at that point it will be sent to the congress and senate for a vote. This is where it gets good. The house/congress votes on who the President will be. It has nothing to do with what party that has power. Every State gets one vote and 30 States are held by Republicans.and 19 by Democrats. They have to vote down party lines, they have no choice due to the 12th Amendment of the Constitution and the Senate votes for the Vice President where a similar even will take place. This is The law. This is why the Democrats are so mad at Nancy Pelosi.
This will all happen in January. The only way President Trump won’t be President is if he concedes the election and that will never happen.
So stop watching the fake news and don’t let your heart be troubled and live your life knowing this will all work out. ...
[Remember they called] Gore the President Elect for 30 days in 2000 until the courts ruled against him and declared Bush the winner.
And two people that were part of that decision was none other that new Supreme Court Justices, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. Why do you think the Democrats tried so hard to keep them from being confirmed."
=============================================================================
NOTE: It should be noted that some people may argue Barrett should recuse herself from voting because Trump publicly stated specifically that he appointed her for this reason. The way Murkowski said it when she voted to confirm Barrett: she didn't agree with the process, but she didn't think that should be held against Barrett. In this case, I don't think it should be held against Trump that Barrett was appointed by him. I think her judgment could easily find for or against "mass fraud" regardless of any politics or bias. It either is proven or it is not. Only if there wasn't enough proof, and someone called it fraud anyway due to political bias that would be clearly a political conflict of interest. But it wouldn't be fair if the case truly present indisputable evidence of mass fraud, but "just because a justice was appointed by Trump" the ninth vote is eliminated and this affects the outcome. That is hurting the case due to politics, which is just as unfair as helping the case. As long as the decision can be made objectively based on uncontested evidence that is not political propaganda but digitally documented where anyone can see it was fraudulent, there should be no question of political bias affecting the case.
"This is going to the Supreme Court.
Where they can easily rule that the election is invalid due to fraud or mistakes on a country wide scale.
It will go one of two ways, either they will rule that all the unconstitutional mail in ballots will be removed and the states ordered to recount without them or they will simply rule the election is invalid due to mass voter fraud and at that point it will be sent to the congress and senate for a vote. This is where it gets good. The house/congress votes on who the President will be. It has nothing to do with what party that has power. Every State gets one vote and 30 States are held by Republicans.and 19 by Democrats. They have to vote down party lines, they have no choice due to the 12th Amendment of the Constitution and the Senate votes for the Vice President where a similar even will take place. This is The law. This is why the Democrats are so mad at Nancy Pelosi.
This will all happen in January. The only way President Trump won’t be President is if he concedes the election and that will never happen.
So stop watching the fake news and don’t let your heart be troubled and live your life knowing this will all work out. ...
[Remember they called] Gore the President Elect for 30 days in 2000 until the courts ruled against him and declared Bush the winner.
And two people that were part of that decision was none other that new Supreme Court Justices, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. Why do you think the Democrats tried so hard to keep them from being confirmed."
=============================================================================
NOTE: It should be noted that some people may argue Barrett should recuse herself from voting because Trump publicly stated specifically that he appointed her for this reason. The way Murkowski said it when she voted to confirm Barrett: she didn't agree with the process, but she didn't think that should be held against Barrett. In this case, I don't think it should be held against Trump that Barrett was appointed by him. I think her judgment could easily find for or against "mass fraud" regardless of any politics or bias. It either is proven or it is not. Only if there wasn't enough proof, and someone called it fraud anyway due to political bias that would be clearly a political conflict of interest. But it wouldn't be fair if the case truly present indisputable evidence of mass fraud, but "just because a justice was appointed by Trump" the ninth vote is eliminated and this affects the outcome. That is hurting the case due to politics, which is just as unfair as helping the case. As long as the decision can be made objectively based on uncontested evidence that is not political propaganda but digitally documented where anyone can see it was fraudulent, there should be no question of political bias affecting the case.
emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
- Thread starter
- #23
IF CONTESTED STATES
SPLIT THEIR ELECTORAL VOTES because they are so close to 50/50
that the margin of error in irregularities in counting or confirming ballots,
makes that system unreliable in measuring such a narrow difference between the candidates,
(where it isn't guaranteed 100% accurate in determining if Biden or Trump has an undisputed majority),
then the Electoral Count could TIE as 269 to 269
If neither candidate received 270,
the vote goes to the House and Senate,
where each State receives 1 vote, the House
votes for President and the Senate for Vice President.
If so, we the people can petition Congress to
vote for both Biden and Trump to share duties of
executive office, in order to better represent all States
and people of All parties across America inclusively.
That way 99% of the voters will get the candidate they voted for into office,
instead of 50%.
SPLIT THEIR ELECTORAL VOTES because they are so close to 50/50
that the margin of error in irregularities in counting or confirming ballots,
makes that system unreliable in measuring such a narrow difference between the candidates,
(where it isn't guaranteed 100% accurate in determining if Biden or Trump has an undisputed majority),
then the Electoral Count could TIE as 269 to 269
If neither candidate received 270,
the vote goes to the House and Senate,
where each State receives 1 vote, the House
votes for President and the Senate for Vice President.
If so, we the people can petition Congress to
vote for both Biden and Trump to share duties of
executive office, in order to better represent all States
and people of All parties across America inclusively.
That way 99% of the voters will get the candidate they voted for into office,
instead of 50%.
| BIDEN | TRUMP | ||
| Alabama | 9 | ||
| Alaska | 3 | ||
| Arizona | 6 | 5 | CONTESTED |
| Arkansas | 6 | ||
| California | 55 | ||
| Colorado | 9 | ||
| Connecticut | 7 | ||
| Delaware | 3 | ||
| Florida | 29 | ||
| Georgia | 8 | 8 | CONTESTED |
| Hawaii | 4 | ||
| Idaho | 4 | ||
| Illinois | 20 | ||
| Indiana | 11 | ||
| Iowa | 6 | ||
| Kansas | 6 | ||
| Kentucky | 8 | ||
| Louisiana | 8 | ||
| Maine | 2 | 2 | SPLIT |
| Maryland | 10 | ||
| Massachusetts | 11 | ||
| Michigan | 8 | 8 | CONTESTED |
| Minnesota | 10 | ||
| Mississippi | 6 | ||
| Missouri | 10 | ||
| Montana | 3 | ||
| Nebraska | 1 | 4 | SPLIT |
| Nevada | 6 | ||
| New Hampshire | 4 | ||
| New Jersey | 14 | ||
| New Mexico | 5 | ||
| New York | 29 | ||
| North Carolina | 15 | ||
| North Dakota | 3 | ||
| Ohio | 18 | ||
| Oklahoma | 7 | ||
| Oregon | 7 | ||
| Pennsylvania | 10 | 10 | CONTESTED |
| Rhode Island | 4 | ||
| South Carolina | 9 | ||
| South Dakota | 3 | ||
| Tennessee | 11 | ||
| Texas | 38 | ||
| Utah | 6 | ||
| Vermont | 3 | ||
| Virginia | 13 | ||
| Washington | 12 | ||
| West Virginia | 5 | ||
| Wisconsin | 5 | 5 | CONTESTED |
| Wyoming | 3 | ||
| W DC | 3 | ||
269 | 269 |
Last edited:
candycorn
Diamond Member
Neither is likely to happen.
Biden will be sworn in as the 46th President in January.
candycorn
Diamond Member
Biden contests NC. He wins.
- Banned
- #26
Election is over and Biden's perform has a won battle.
The military to exalt probably tasks.
Last edited:
