Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 37 to 48 of 58
  1. #37
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Location
    Blue crab country
    Posts
    1,709

    Re: Not a Shread of Evidence

    Quote Originally Posted by JimZipCode View Post
    Am I reading it wrong? Here's a couple screenshots showing parts of pages 7 & 8:


    7 to 8:




    more of 8:



    I understood the smaller-font entries that are bulleted & indented to be items on the ballot.
    And I took the circled "5-0" in the bold font to be the results of the board's vote to certify.
    Is that incorrect?


    Okay.


    Not sure what you're referencing here? You'll need to slow down for the dumb liberal to follow.

    Trump lost the statewide by just under 12k. Razor-thin margin, like 0.2%. Absolutely justified recounts.

    Approx 5 million votes cast, representing about 70% of the active registered voters. The results you show for the bills & resolutions seem consistent with ~5m votes. So I'm not sure what the 2mil difference is that you mention?

    You was insinuating that it was preposterous to vote ay on the down ballot items and used it as evidence for your argument. I'm showing you it's not and you still can't see it? Look at the difference of votes for the presidential and the down ballot items.
    Last edited by Willbacker; 04-14-2024 at 09:18 AM.
    I don't know a lot but I know a little





  2. #38
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Location
    Blue crab country
    Posts
    1,709

    Re: Not a Shread of Evidence

    Quote Originally Posted by JimZipCode View Post
    Because this is a thread about the 2020 election lie.
    Can't talk about everything at once.
    Well you sure have been. Long posts of gibberish.
    I don't know a lot but I know a little





  3. #39
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Balt-Wash corridor
    Posts
    25,303

    Re: Not a Shread of Evidence

    Quote Originally Posted by Willbacker View Post
    You was insinuating that it was preposterous to vote ay on the down ballot items and used it as evidence for your argument. I'm showing you it's not and you still can't see it? Look at the difference of votes for the presidential and the down ballot items.
    Are you trying to say, the voting margin was so huge on the down-ballot items, that it's reasonable for a board-member to vote "aye" on them while still having reservations on the presidential race?
    If that's the point you were trying to make, then I have finally got what you were saying. Hooray.

    But this was Fulton County only, not statewide. Trump lost 72% to 26%, a margin of ~243,000 votes. That's pretty damn decisive. An election board member who votes nay on certifying that result is not serving his county, he's serving an agenda.





  4. #40

    Re: Not a Shread of Evidence

    Quote Originally Posted by JimZipCode View Post

    But this was Fulton County only, not statewide. Trump lost 72% to 26%, a margin of ~243,000 votes. That's pretty damn decisive. An election board member who votes nay on certifying that result is not serving his county, he's serving an agenda.
    Just you wait until the house refuse to certify any result that isnt a Trump Victory lol
    I believe in Devontez Walker





  5. #41
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Location
    Blue crab country
    Posts
    1,709

    Re: Not a Shread of Evidence

    Quote Originally Posted by JimZipCode View Post
    Are you trying to say, the voting margin was so huge on the down-ballot items, that it's reasonable for a board-member to vote "aye" on them while still having reservations on the presidential race?
    If that's the point you were trying to make, then I have finally got what you were saying. Hooray.

    But this was Fulton County only, not statewide. Trump lost 72% to 26%, a margin of ~243,000 votes. That's pretty damn decisive. An election board member who votes nay on certifying that result is not serving his county, he's serving an agenda.
    Right and it wouldn't have made a difference so just go ahead and ok that part but it would've in the presidential election since it was 147k votes in question in Fulton Co. The down ballot wouldn't change Jim but it could have in the presidential. So if doesnt matter just go aye. See you cant go aye on the presidential election since it determines the race.
    I don't know a lot but I know a little





  6. #42
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Balt-Wash corridor
    Posts
    25,303

    Re: Not a Shread of Evidence

    Quote Originally Posted by ShadeRaven View Post
    Just you wait until the house refuse to certify any result that isnt a Trump Victory lol
    That's what Trump was trying to make happen on Jan 6.

    Honestly, I do not put it past them. Not one bit.





  7. #43
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Mt. Arrogance in the middle of the .11 rolling acres of The Windbag Estates
    Posts
    14,029

    Re: Not a Shread of Evidence

    Quote Originally Posted by JimZipCode View Post
    That's what Trump was trying to make happen on Jan 6.

    Honestly, I do not put it past them. Not one bit.
    You do realize it was an attempt to exercise a process in the Constitution, right?

    The idea is for states where there is a question re-certify, or correct, the results.

    You may also be aware, or perhaps not, that Democrats have attempted to use this same device. They also talked about sitting different electors than the state had sent.





  8. #44
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Balt-Wash corridor
    Posts
    25,303

    Re: Not a Shread of Evidence

    Quote Originally Posted by Greg View Post
    You do realize it was an attempt to exercise a process in the Constitution, right?
    I need help understanding what "it" you're referring to.

    — If "it" was Congress certifying the electors, then yes "it" was an attempt to exercise a process in the Constitution.
    — If "it" was Trump sending a mob of goons to disrupt that certification, then no "it" was NOT a an attempt to exercise a process in the Constitution.


    Quote Originally Posted by Greg View Post
    The idea is for states where there is a question re-certify, or correct, the results.
    Sort of.

    You might want to take note of the difference between "ministerial" and "discretionary" acts:

    A ministerial act is an act performed in a prescribed manner and in obedience to a legal authority, without regard to one's own judgment or discretion. The distinction between ministerial acts and acts that are discretionary is often important to determine whether a public official is shielded by qualified immunity.
    Ministerial Act Definition
    An act performed by a government employee following explicit instructions in a statute or other legal authority, or directions given from a superior, without exercising any discretion or independent judgment.
    In the court system, “[a] duty is discretionary if the government actor is required to exercise his or her judgment or discretion in performing the duty.” On the other hand, “a duty is ministerial and not discretionary if it is imposed by law and its performance is not dependent on the employee’s judgment.”
    The VP's role, as President of the Senate, in electoral certification is strictly ministerial.

    The role of Members of Congress is not as strictly "ministerial" as the VP's, but it's still pretty sharply limited:

    The President of the Senate then calls for any objections [to a state's electoral votes].

    To be recognized, an objection must:

    1. be submitted in writing
    2. be signed by at least one-fifth of the House and one-fifth of the Senate
    3. state clearly and concisely, without argument, one of two acceptable grounds for objection; that:
    a. the electors of the State were not lawfully certified under a Certificate of Ascertainment, or
    b. the vote of one or more electors has not been regularly given.

    If an objection is recognized, the House and Senate withdraw to their respective chambers to consider the merits of any objections, following the process set out in 3 U.S.C. §§ 15 and 17.
    If they have to withdraw to their respective chambers, there are limits on how anyone can speak for, and how much total time they can take.


    Quote Originally Posted by Greg View Post
    You may also be aware, or perhaps not, that Democrats have attempted to use this same device. They also talked about sitting different electors than the state had sent.
    I'm not. When did this happen?

    I'm also curious whether they just "talked" about it, or if they attempted to send fraudulent electors from states.
    And also whether they threatened the Vice President and members of Congress to get them to certify fraudulent electors.





  9. #45
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Mt. Arrogance in the middle of the .11 rolling acres of The Windbag Estates
    Posts
    14,029

    Re: Not a Shread of Evidence

    Quote Originally Posted by JimZipCode View Post


    I'm not. When did this happen?

    I'm also curious whether they just "talked" about it, or if they attempted to send fraudulent electors from states.
    And also whether they threatened the Vice President and members of Congress to get them to certify fraudulent electors.
    LOL, missed 2016 did ya?





  10. #46
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Balt-Wash corridor
    Posts
    25,303

    Re: Not a Shread of Evidence

    Quote Originally Posted by Greg View Post
    LOL, missed 2016 did ya?
    I guess so.

    Did the then-president of the US or the Dem candidate coordinate an attempt to send fraudulent electors from states in 2016-17? Did they encourage followers to threaten the VP or members of Congress to make them certify fraudulent electors?

    A 30-second Google search shows me some Bernie Bros attempting to break the Electoral College system:

    Democratic presidential electors revolt against Trump
    11/22/2016
    https://www.politico.com/story/2016/...s-trump-231731
    At least a half-dozen Democratic electors have signed onto an attempt to block Donald Trump from winning an Electoral College majority, an effort designed not only to deny Trump the presidency but also to undermine the legitimacy of the institution.

    The presidential electors, mostly former Bernie Sanders supporters who hail from Washington state and Colorado, are now lobbying their Republican counterparts in other states to reject their oaths — and in some cases, state law — to vote against Trump when the Electoral College meets on Dec. 19.
    ...
    the Democratic electors are convinced that even in defeat, their efforts would erode confidence in the Electoral College and fuel efforts to eliminate it, ending the body’s 228-year run as the only official constitutional process for electing the president. With that goal in mind, the group is also contemplating encouraging Democratic electors to oppose Hillary Clinton and partner with Republicans in support of a consensus pick like Mitt Romney or John Kasich.

    The underlying idea is that a mass defection of electors could provide the impetus for a wave of changes to the Electoral College. “I do think that a byproduct would be a serious look into Electoral College reform,” said Micheal Baca, a Democratic elector from Colorado who is spearheading the anti-Trump effort, along with Washington state elector P. Bret Chiafalo.

    “If it gets into the House, the controversy and the uncertainty that would immediately blow up into a political firestorm in the U.S. would cause enough people — my hope is — to look at the whole concept of the Electoral College,” said another elector involved in the anti-Trump planning, who declined to be identified.
    Seattle Times
    May 23, 2019
    https://archive.ph/oJFS1
    The “faithless electors” who defied both a pledge they had made and the will of Washington voters by casting their Electoral College votes for candidates other than Hillary Clinton in 2016 can be fined $1,000, as state law stipulates, the Washington State Supreme Court ruled Thursday.
    Four of Washington’s 12 Democratic presidential electors went rogue in 2016, with three casting their votes for former Secretary of State Colin Powell and one casting his vote for Faith Spotted Eagle, an activist in the fight against the Keystone XL Pipeline. All had signed pledges to support Clinton if she won the state’s vote.
    Opinion analysis: Court upholds “faithless elector” laws
    July 6, 2020
    https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/07/o...s-elector-laws
    The second challenge hailed from Colorado, where Clinton also won the popular vote. Micheal Baca was removed from his position as an elector when he tried to vote for Republican John Kasich, then the governor of Ohio, instead. Two other would-be faithless electors in Colorado, Polly Baca and Robert Nemanich, eventually cast their ballots for Clinton
    Washington St and Colorado both went blue in 2016, so we're talking about Hillary electors who went rogue. Probably not something the Democratic Party wanted.
    Two Repub electors also went rogue:

    Texas Tribune
    Dec 19, 2016
    https://archive.ph/Tcia9
    All but two of Texas' 38 electors voted Monday to officially put Donald Trump in the White House, with one elector casting a ballot for Ohio Gov. John Kasich and another casting a ballot for a fellow Texan, former U.S. Rep. Ron Paul.
    ...
    Elector Chris Suprun of Dallas had previously announced he would not support Trump. Another elector, Art Sisneros of Dayton, resigned as an elector, also in protest of Trump.
    ...
    The vote was unusually closely watched but largely expected: Both Suprun and Sisneros had shared their plans weeks in advance of the meeting. Suprun, however, did not announce until hours before the vote that he would instead vote for Kasich.
    It was not immediately known who voted for Paul, the longtime congressman from Lake Jackson and three-time presidential hopeful. The process is secret ballot, meaning electors' votes are not public unless they choose to disclose them.
    Speaking with reporters after the vote, Suprun said he had no regrets about having opposed Trump. Asked about the other elector who voted against Trump, Suprun said he had no idea who it was.
    "I think I cast a ballot based on principles and values," Suprun said outside the House chamber. "You can never go wrong when you're doing that."
    So five Clinton electors (4 Wash, 1 Colo) and two Trump electors (Tex) acted as “faithless electors” and switched votes; and one more Trump elector (Tex) resigned in protest.

    That's vastly different from the organized (or semi-organized) effort by Trump cronies to remove duly chosen electors by fiat, and reverse the state results they didn't like.



    Your "Dems did it too!" remark looks like it's just more baseless Republican bullshit. But maybe I just didn't find the right stuff – you didn't give me much detail to search with.

    If you have some actual info that I didn't find, other than some Dinesh D’Souza fantasy drivel, please tell me so I can educate myself.





  11. #47
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    9,494
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Not a Shread of Evidence

    Jim you didn’t find the right thing’ cause you aren’t really looking for it.
    7 Dem representatives challenged the electoral votes in 2016. Exactly the same mechanism that was attempted on 2020.





  12. #48
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Balt-Wash corridor
    Posts
    25,303

    Re: Not a Shread of Evidence

    Quote Originally Posted by blah3 View Post
    Jim you didn’t find the right thing’ cause you aren’t really looking for it.
    No, I "didn't find the right thing" because I wasn't given an ounce of helpful information. Just a snarky quip.

    I took the moment's trouble to look into it. Why don't you guys do some fucking work for a change?


    Quote Originally Posted by blah3 View Post
    7 Dem representatives challenged the electoral votes in 2016. Exactly the same mechanism that was attempted on 2020.
    Ha. It's cute how you gloss over the coordinated effort to appoint fraudulent slates of electors, and how the thug-in-chief tried to strong-arm the VP & Congress into certifying them.

    "Exactly the same mechanism" my ass.





Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Link To Mobile Site
var infolinks_pid = 3297965; var infolinks_wsid = 0; //—->