Mega-Thread: 2020 United States General Election

[DarkTZeratul]

I see what you're saying, and how you're reading it does have a sense of logic to it. For me, I'm seeing that the electors are already appointed. And if their states counting gets delayed then not certified, they simply can't vote as appointed.

From Article 2, Section I:
"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."

I can try and find the specific declared rules under which this appointment currently happens (since that part isn't in the Constitution), but my understanding is that the election is to choose which set of pledged electors will be appointed. Right now, they are merely nominees chosen by their respective parties.

What's driving my position is that [stupid fucking] article that I cannot find (I think it was from the Atlantic) now. Even then, of course, it's just one article. I'm actually not finding anything at all on what we're discussing - one way or the other.

I'd certainly love to see it. It's possible there's a perspective that I'm missing, but from what I can see I feel like it's quite clear that you can't both appoint electors and not certify their election.

Oh FFS, thank you.

Ah, okay, now I see what the article is suggesting. Not that Trump would fight the election after the fact and prevent them from certifying, but that Trump would proactively ask them not to vote for their electors at all and simply appoint them by legislative fiat. Which would certainly be within their Constitutional rights to do (and would absolutely lead to massive fucking protests).

While it does mention the possibility of a candidate receiving less than 270 votes, I don't see any described scenario under which that would occur - short of failing to appoint electors at all, which as I noted would actually just lower the number of electoral votes required to win.

[Bodakane]

For those of you who may not have watched the RNC speeches last night, this one was one of the best........by a civil rights activist who for decades, has fought against racism and equality..

Why do his words carry more weight for you, then the 100's of other civil rights activists who have fought against racism and inequality?

[Orange Joe]

For the last time screw you and your Neo-liberal loving ass whom adores a pro-segratationsist rapist.


I wonder who does more cocaine, Hunter Biden or Trump Jr?

Trump jr. no question.

[beanman12345]

Why do his words carry more weight for you, then the 100's of other civil rights activists who have fought against racism and inequality?

He probably doesn't know even know about another civil right's activist who died a month or so ago, and Trump wouldn't even go to his funeral.

[eschatological]

For those of you who may not have watched the RNC speeches last night, this one was one of the best........by a civil rights activist who for decades, has fought against racism and equality..

How come this dude, if he was such an integral part of the Civil Rights movement, doesn't even have a wikipedia entry? Like, nothing I can find on him at all except his biography on his own website.

[VamosH]

Oh look it's the neo-liberal cheer squad. We get Feyla and Chubby in here and you all can gang up on someone who has a difference of opinion from your narrow viewpoint of the world.

It's Cubby and Felya I think. They're both good lads. You need to calm down a bit.

[Edge-]

How come this dude, if he was such an integral part of the Civil Rights movement, doesn't even have a wikipedia entry? Like, nothing I can find on him at all except his biography on his own website.

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/...oryId=18615556

https://journalnow.com/news/local/un...a4bcf6878.html

This is pretty much all I can really find on him when it comes to news predating his support of Trump. He was at the Woolworth sit-in in Greensboro, but it doesn't seem there was much in the way of activism beyond that.

[Smitzelplix]

Kanye West Is Breaking Campaign Finance Law and Keeping His GOP Backers a Secret

But if West simply refused to comply, the FEC would have to step in and actually vote to bring him to court. Since Trump has failed to nominate enough people for a quorum on the FEC’s commission, that means the organization is totally toothless. And if his campaign continues to refuse to follow the law, it might be impossible to know exactly how deep the GOP’s involvement in West’s campaign is until well after the November election.

[eschatological]

Ah, he's a Christian Evangelical who's been trying to get black people to vote Republican since the Bush days? Seems like most black people have seen through that shit.

[Blur4stuff]

So day four of rampant law breaking at the RNC. I'm sure all of the law & order Trump supporters will condemn Trump and his campaign for breaking the law a few hundred times this week.

[infinitemeridian]

If Dems cancel the debates, I'm voting Trump. I've put up with all the bullshit that happened this year hoping I would be rewarded with this, and now it's on the chopping block.

[Thepersona]

Ah, he's a Christian Evangelical who's been trying to get black people to vote Republican since the Bush days? Seems like most black people have seen through that shit.

So now he retorts to lying and saying falsehoods about his persona to try to decieve voters? That's not very Christian of him.

[Sunseeker]

Ah, he's a Christian Evangelical who's been trying to get black people to vote Republican since the Bush days? Seems like most black people have seen through that shit.

I mean, this whole thing is basically "Look I have a black friend, I can't be racist!"

[Milchshake]

So now he retorts to lying and saying falsehoods about his persona to try to decieve voters? That's not very Christian of him.

I'm a guess you have never met Jerry Falwell Jr...

There's still a good chance you have met his wife though!



/joke!
/i'm here all week, thanks for coming

[beanman12345]

If Dems cancel the debates, I'm voting Trump. I've put up with all the bullshit that happened this year hoping I would be rewarded with this, and now it's on the chopping block.

I just saw Biden on t.v. not 5 minutes ago saying he's going to and wants to debate Trump despite Dem's like Pelosi saying he shouldn't. So if it doesn't happen, it'll likely be because Trump's a coward.

[cubby]

From Article 2, Section I:
"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."

I can try and find the specific declared rules under which this appointment currently happens (since that part isn't in the Constitution), but my understanding is that the election is to choose which set of pledged electors will be appointed. Right now, they are merely nominees chosen by their respective parties.

And I think this is where our two positions pivot away from each other. From my reading, those appointments are already slated - the 538 are already there, vis a vis the number of House and Senate from each state. To be more specific, I believe the exact word we're disagreeing on is "appoint".

I'd certainly love to see it. It's possible there's a perspective that I'm missing, but from what I can see I feel like it's quite clear that you can't both appoint electors and not certify their election.

Ah, okay, now I see what the article is suggesting. Not that Trump would fight the election after the fact and prevent them from certifying, but that Trump would proactively ask them not to vote for their electors at all and simply appoint them by legislative fiat. Which would certainly be within their Constitutional rights to do (and would absolutely lead to massive fucking protests).

While it does mention the possibility of a candidate receiving less than 270 votes, I don't see any described scenario under which that would occur - short of failing to appoint electors at all, which as I noted would actually just lower the number of electoral votes required to win.

Yeah, @PhaelixWW found it, and I reread it, and the part I thought was in there is not. I'm still looking for something referencing what happens if a state is not able to certify their vote, leaving those electoral college votes essentially "abstained". And I can't find anything, either way.

- - - Updated - - -

If Dems cancel the debates, I'm voting Trump. I've put up with all the bullshit that happened this year hoping I would be rewarded with this, and now it's on the chopping block.

Are you seeing anything suggesting they will?

[Edge-]

I'm just waiting for the burning cross at this point.

[Milchshake]

I just saw Biden on t.v. not 5 minutes ago saying he's going to and wants to debate Trump despite Dem's like Pelosi saying he shouldn't. So if it doesn't happen, it'll likely be because Trump's a coward.

Nancy also knows how to bait Trump. Likely Biden's team knew as well.

[infinitemeridian]

And I think this is where our two positions pivot away from each other. From my reading, those appointments are already slated - the 538 are already there, vis a vis the number of House and Senate from each state. To be more specific, I believe the exact word we're disagreeing on is "appoint".




Yeah, @PhaelixWW found it, and I reread it, and the part I thought was in there is not. I'm still looking for something referencing what happens if a state is not able to certify their vote, leaving those electoral college votes essentially "abstained". And I can't find anything, either way.

- - - Updated - - -



Are you seeing anything suggesting they will?

Pelosi said the debates should be cancelled. It will make Dems look incredibly weak if they chicken out on debates against Trump, especially since this election is about standing up to him (supposedly).

[beanman12345]

Nancy also knows how to bait Trump. Likely Biden's team knew as well.

Yeah Biden said Pelosi is just saying it to the camera's, for an audience of 1. He didn't say the last bit, I added that bit in.