Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Kaleredar]

It doesn't require that. States are individually free to rig their elections as they please. You won so I don't know why you're upset about it.

- - - Updated - - -



The popular vote is irrelevant to Presidential elections.

Again, "more people like you than us, therefore you cheated because you made it easier for people who were able to vote do so" is a really... well, just idiotic take.

It's wrong to make it difficult for people who are able to vote to do so. It's correct to make it easier for people who can vote to do so. Anything else is antithetical to democracy.

[postman1782]

That's the nonjusticiable thing. Courts can't rule on political questions.



Sorry, what's the conspiracy theory?



Absolutely they can and did.

The fuck they can't rule on political things.

And no, the states can't rig things for themselves if their candidates won. That is one of the charges that Trump is being charged for.

[Jermain]

Again, "more people like you than us, therefore you cheated because you made it easier for people who were able to vote do so" is a really... well, just idiotic take.

It's wrong to make it difficult for people who are able to vote to do so. It's correct to make it easier for people who can vote to do so. Anything else is antithetical to democracy.

Neither. Democracy is agnostic on who gets to vote. You've decided on a new definition, or, "rigging". This has been the course for quite awhile now.

- - - Updated - - -

The fuck they can't rule on political things.

And no, the states can't rig things for themselves if their candidates won. That is one of the charges that Trump is being charged for.

Citation in law please. I'd love to learn more!

[postman1782]

Neither. Democracy is agnostic on who gets to vote. You've decided on a new definition, or, "rigging". This has been the course for quite awhile now.

- - - Updated - - -



Citation in law please. I'd love to learn more!

They literally ruled on 62 voter fraud cases in 2020, 1 republicans won, 61 Democrats won because Republicans had no evidence. And if a state goes against their state's voters, they will be sued into oblivion. And what law do you want? For What?

[Jermain]

They literally ruled on 62 voter fraud cases in 2020, 1 republicans won, 61 Democrats won because Republicans had no evidence. And if a state goes against their state's voters, they will be sued into oblivion. And what law do you want? For What?

Internal individual state law issue. That's why it was nonjusticiable by federal courts, which was the bulk of the cases.

[Kaleredar]

Neither. Democracy is agnostic on who gets to vote. You've decided on a new definition, or, "rigging". This has been the course for quite awhile now.

People who can vote = people eligible to vote.

You really don't have a foot to stand on here, bud. Certainly not the one of "It's equally fine in a democracy for one state to make it more difficult for people to vote based on their demographic as it is for another state to make it easier for everyone to vote" that you're alluding to, here.

[postman1782]

Internal individual state law issue. That's why it was nonjusticiable by federal courts, which was the bulk of the cases.

Not in a federal election, no it isn't.

[Jermain]

Not in a federal election, no it isn't.

States decide on their delegations to send to the United States Congress.

You are operating on bad information.

- - - Updated - - -

People who can vote = people eligible to vote.

You really don't have a foot to stand on here, bud. Certainly not the one of "It's equally fine in a democracy for one state to make it more difficult for people to vote based on their demographic as it is for another state to make it easier for everyone to vote" that you're alluding to, here.

Isn't it though? You don't have to like expanding the ability to vote and I don't like it either.

Also, leg.

[Kaleredar]

Isn't it though? You don't have to like expanding the ability to vote and I don't like it either.

...because? More people vote for democrats?

Moreover, the systems you're citing didn't arbitrarily make it so "more" people could vote who could not previously; it simply changed how people who were eligible to vote could do so. Or are you going to tell me that the vote of someone who could do so in person on the day of voting is "different" when it's done by mail or done early?

So... no, no leg. Because you haven't rectified how "more people voting is bad." You just don't like it because it means you lost. That's like complaining that you don't like that you don't get any points if you miss the hoop in basketball. Sorry, that's not a bad rule, that's the sport.

[Jermain]

...because? More people vote for democrats?

Moreover, the systems you're citing didn't arbitrarily make it so "more" people could vote who could not previously; it simply changed how people who were eligible to vote could do so. Or are you going to tell me that the vote of someone who could do so in person on the day of voting is "different" when it's done by mail or done early?

So... no, no leg. Because you haven't rectified how "more people voting is bad." You just don't like it because it means you lost. That's like complaining that you don't like that you don't get any points if you miss the hoop in basketball. Sorry, that's not a bad rule, that's the sport.

At first you said there was no rigging, but now you say the rigging was good.

It's really simple to change your mind about things in just a few minutes.

[postman1782]

States decide on their delegations to send to the United States Congress.

You are operating on bad information.

- - - Updated - - -



Isn't it though? You don't have to like expanding the ability to vote and I don't like it either.

Also, leg.

Yes, and they cannot have faithless or fake electors. Even SCOTUS ruled on that. That was ruled on in Chiafalo v. Washington and was reaffirmed in July of 2020 that states cannot have faithless electors. And we now know that fake electors are also against the law, and are being charged in many states.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/prod...0their%20state.

[Jermain]

Yes, and they cannot have faithless or fake electors. Even SCOTUS ruled on that. That was ruled on in Chiafalo v. Washington and was reaffirmed in July of 2020 that states cannot have faithless electors. And we now know that fake electors are also against the law, and are being charged in many states.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/prod...0their%20state.

Alternate electors aren't faithless electors. They're just sworn to another candidate.

See: Kennedy/Nixon Hawaii 1960

[DarkTZeratul]

At first you said there was no rigging, but now you say the rigging was good.

So do you really actually think "it's easier to vote" means "it's rigged"? Because that's the only thing that makes your statement make any sense at all.

- - - Updated - - -

Alternate electors aren't faithless electors. They're just sworn to another candidate.

See: Kennedy/Nixon Hawaii 1960

There's no such thing as "alternate electors." If they weren't voted for, then they aren't electors, they're just fraudulently pretending to be.

[Jermain]

So do you really actually think "it's easier to vote" means "it's rigged"? Because that's the only thing that makes your statement make any sense at all.

One party's voters are more likely to vote in person on election day.

The other party's voters are more likely to vote by mail for 6 weeks prior to and 6 weeks after election day.

Which party is advantaged by the rules?

[postman1782]

Alternate electors aren't faithless electors. They're just sworn to another candidate.

See: Kennedy/Nixon Hawaii 1960

Wrong, if they aren't what the state votes for, then they are fake/faithless electors. And this court case is newer than your shitty case.

- - - Updated - - -

One party's voters are more likely to vote in person on election day.

The other party's voters are more likely to vote by mail for 6 weeks prior to and 6 weeks after election day.

Which party is advantaged by the rules?

No one votes 6 weeks after the election day. Not a single person has.

[Jermain]

Wrong, if they aren't what the state votes for, then they are fake/faithless electors. And this court case is newer than your shitty case.

I could be wrong but I think state parties set their state elector slates prior to the election being conducted.

- - - Updated - - -

No one votes 6 weeks after the election day. Not a single person has.

That sarcasm is immaterial to the argument.

[PosPosPos]

That sarcasm is immaterial to the argument.

Calling your bald-faced lying "sarcasm" after you were called out on it is such a typical far-right tactic.

- - - Updated - - -

I could be wrong but I think state parties set their state elector slates prior to the election being conducted.

Skip the "could be", you are absolutely wrong about everything you have said so far, because it's just plain lying by you.

[Jermain]

Calling your bald-faced lying "sarcasm" after you were called out on it is such a typical far-right tactic.

- - - Updated - - -



Skip the "could be", you are absolutely wrong about everything you have said so far, because it's just plain lying by you.

Support your claims with evidence.

[masterhorus8]

Support your claims with evidence.

You made the first claims, back them up.

[postman1782]

I could be wrong but I think state parties set their state elector slates prior to the election being conducted.

- - - Updated - - -



That sarcasm is immaterial to the argument.

It isn't sarcasm. There is no one that has ever voted 6 weeks after election day. Not a single person has even a day after the election.

And no, the state electors aren't selected til December. And they have official documents with state seals and everything. Not like the fake electors in 2020. They are literally all being charged for faking federal documents.