Mega-Thread: 2020 United States General Election

[solinari6]

You'd have an acting speaker, yes.

Right, so why would it matter if the dems lost the house in 2022?

[Belize]

Right, so why would it matter if the dems lost the house in 2022?

Because then the GOP would elect a proper Speaker and he'd (I don't believe they'd ever have a woman be Speaker) would then get bumped up to Acting President.

It's a weird game of musical chairs, go watch CGP Grey's video on the order of succession of the Presidency. Let's just say it's a good thing it's never been put to the test beyond VP --> Pres, because it gets messy real quick past Speaker --> Pres.

[solinari6]

Because then the GOP would elect a proper Speaker and he'd (I don't believe they'd ever have a woman be Speaker) would then get bumped up to Acting President.

Is that actually outlined in the constitution? I've never heard that once the Speaker was raised up to president, they'd automatically get replaced by the next speaker. Wouldn't Pelosi appoint a vice president, and then THEY'D be second in line? Or is everyone just "acting" and are constantly getting replaced until a real election?

[Belize]

Is that actually outlined in the constitution? I've never heard that once the Speaker was raised up to president, they'd automatically get replaced by the next speaker. Wouldn't Pelosi appoint a vice president, and then THEY'D be second in line? Or is everyone just "acting" and are constantly getting replaced until a real election?

So it's up for debate (because when the Constitutional Amendment was written, they 2nd Amendment'd it and made the wording unclear) but one interpretation is "Bumping".

A.K.A. let's say you go down to the point where the SoS is made President. When the Senate elects a President Pro Tempore, they would bump the SoS out of the position, and then when a Speaker gets elected, they bump the PPT out of the spot.

Acting President just means that they get to be in control until someone is officially put into position. They don't actually become President, meaning if the 2022 elections are held, and the GOP gains control of the House, their new Speaker becomes Acting President at that time and a new Acting Speaker is put in his place.

[Benggaul]

Interruption #2 is FOX News' decision, not mine. They actually put their usual ALL-CAPS mini headline, this time about Trump giving up on a lawsuit, in the middle of Giuliani saying they weren't giving up lawsuits.

Did you read that one? Because it's even funnier. The reason they are withdrawing that lawsuit in Michigan is because, Giuliani says, they've achieved their goal of having the certification stopped in Wayne.

Except it wasn't. It was certified. Unanimously. Despite the two GOP shitheads saying "omg wait, no, we take it back", there are no "take backsies". It's been certified and that's all there is to it. Michigan state will be certified on schedule.

[PhaelixWW]

Acting President just means that they get to be in control until someone is officially put into position. They don't actually become President, meaning if the 2022 elections are held, and the GOP gains control of the House, their new Speaker becomes Acting President at that time and a new Acting Speaker is put in his place.

I don't agree with that interpretation at all. In the event that there's no President or VP, the Speaker resigns as Speaker and is sworn in as Acting President. There's nothing about "whoever holds the Speaker position is elevated for the duration of their role as Speaker". It's a one-and-done thing. The Speaker becomes the Acting President and a new Speaker is elected. If the House changes hands in the mid-term elections, then a different person would be the Speaker, but it shouldn't affect the Acting President.

Actually, from the text of the Presidential Succession Act 1947:

(c) An individual acting as President under subsection (a) or subsection (b) shall continue to act until the expiration of the then current Presidential term, except that--

(1) if his discharge of the powers and duties of the office is founded in whole or in part on the failure of both the President-elect and the Vice-President-elect to qualify, then he shall act only until a President or Vice President qualifies; and

(2) if his discharge of the powers and duties of the office is founded in whole or in part on the inability of the President or Vice President, then he shall act only until the removal of the disability of one of such individuals.

So yeah, mid-terms would affect nothing. If the election were to stay nullified, then Pelosi would be Acting President until 2024, regardless.

[Noxx79]

Is that actually outlined in the constitution? I've never heard that once the Speaker was raised up to president, they'd automatically get replaced by the next speaker. Wouldn't Pelosi appoint a vice president, and then THEY'D be second in line? Or is everyone just "acting" and are constantly getting replaced until a real election?

Assuming this all goes the clusterfuck way - the 25th amendment says the acting president would nominate a vp, but it would have to be approved by a majority of the house (likely) and senate (not likely, as there would at best be a 50/50 tie depending on what happens with Georgia, and there would be NO tiebreak vote because no vp). So nothing come of that.

The order of succession is in the presidential succession act of 1947 https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Pre...ssion_Act_1947

- - - Updated - - -

I don't agree with that interpretation at all. In the event that there's no President or VP, the Speaker resigns as Speaker and is sworn in as Acting President. There's nothing about "whoever holds the Speaker position is elevated for the duration of their role as Speaker". It's a one-and-done thing. The Speaker becomes the Acting President and a new Speaker is elected. If the House changes hands in the mid-term elections, then a different person would be the Speaker, but it shouldn't affect the Acting President.

Actually, from the text of the Presidential Succession Act 1947:

So yeah, mid-terms would affect nothing. If the election were to stay nullified, then Pelosi would be Acting President until 2024, regardless.

Oh interesting, I missed that part.

[Edge-]

https://www.insider.com/trump-tweets...-board-2020-11

OAN has previously cited an "unaudited analysis of data" from an election watchdog called Edison Research to back up its claims about Dominion, but Edison Research's president, Larry Rosin, told the BBC that the company "has produced no such report and we have no evidence of any voter fraud."

Unsurprisingly, OAN isn't even trying to make believable lies and is just making shit up. And Trump is spreading the word.

[Belize]

I don't agree with that interpretation at all. In the event that there's no President or VP, the Speaker resigns as Speaker and is sworn in as Acting President. There's nothing about "whoever holds the Speaker position is elevated for the duration of their role as Speaker". It's a one-and-done thing. The Speaker becomes the Acting President and a new Speaker is elected. If the House changes hands in the mid-term elections, then a different person would be the Speaker, but it shouldn't affect the Acting President.

Actually, from the text of the Presidential Succession Act 1947:

So yeah, mid-terms would affect nothing. If the election were to stay nullified, then Pelosi would be Acting President until 2024, regardless.

While I agree with your interpretation, we've had debates on Bumping as recently as 2011.
Without a final resolution. The simple matter that this is up in the air is the problem here.

[Thepersona]

https://www.insider.com/trump-tweets...-board-2020-11



Unsurprisingly, OAN isn't even trying to make believable lies and is just making shit up. And Trump is spreading the word.

Can OANN be held liable for lying?

[Edge-]

Can OANN be held liable for lying?

Lying is generally protected under the First Amendment, so no. Even though I wish their access to public airwaves could be revoked.

[cors8]

Can OANN be held liable for lying?

Slander and Libel are actually very hard to prove in the USA.

[beanman12345]

Lying is generally protected under the First Amendment, so no. Even though I wish their access to public airwaves could be revoked.

I'm confused then. Aren't they a publisher? if so what exactly is the point of section 230?

[Edge-]

I'm confused then. Aren't they a publisher? if so what exactly is the point of section 230?

Because they're not violating any laws. Again, lying generally isn't against the law. Making shit up generally isn't against the law. They're not protected from libel if they levy a hit-job against someone or a company, but that'd have to go to court and be proven.

[Orange Joe]

I'm confused then. Aren't they a publisher? if so what exactly is the point of section 230?

https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230
""No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider""

Doesn't seem to do anything about lying.

[beanman12345]

Because they're not violating any laws. Again, lying generally isn't against the law. Making shit up generally isn't against the law. They're not protected from libel if they levy a hit-job against someone or a company, but that'd have to go to court and be proven.

but then why are twitter and facebook fighting so hard to flag lying from trump and other shit in order to keep their 230 status.

[Rasulis]

Arizona Judge Throws Out Republican Party Attempt to Delay Certification of Vote in Maricopa County

To add insults to injury.

The judge also ruled that Secretary Hobbs could “file a motion for attorneys’ fees pursuant to A.R.S. section 12-349 not later than December 7, 2020."

They should be doing that to every single one of Trump's lawsuits. Freaking big waste of time and money.

[Kathranis]

Just don't forget that of the 330m people in the US, only about 240m are actually eligible to vote, so your 20% becomes 31%.

31% of eligible voters, but not the entire population.

Granted, there are plenty of whackos who can't or don't vote. But still, the point stands. These groups constitute a vocal minority under a very bright spotlight.

[beanman12345]

31% of eligible voters, but not the entire population.

Granted, there are plenty of whackos who can't or don't vote. But still, the point stands. These groups constitute a vocal minority under a very bright spotlight.

Yeah it does throw the silent majority bullshit Trumpers have been throwing around out the last few months out the window.

[Skulltaker]

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article...ating-hair-dye

For your nightmarish viewing pleasure, Buzzfeed has compiled a listicle of 16 images of Rudy Giuliani sweating out his cheap hair dye.

I once left a head of salad in my yard befor going on vacation for 4 weeks during summer. It was forgotten during Barbeque, don't ask. It was mid August. When we came back, the salad had basically disintegrated, but the stains it left had the exact same color and consistency.

but then why are twitter and facebook fighting so hard to flag lying from trump and other shit in order to keep their 230 status.

Twitter and facebook are privately owned outlets. It is up to them to publish or not publish whatever they want. Freedom of speech means you are free to say whatever you want, but if you are doing it on other peoples 'ground' (or in this case, servers), they can stop you or comment on it to whatever degree they want.

If you want to proclaim the earth is flat, fine by me. If you want to do that from my balcony, I'm going to kick you the f out of my house. Freedom of speech doesn't guarantee you a platform to speak. It just means you cannot be punished for what you say.

They both want to save face. It's a question of morality, really. Do you want to be known as the network that allowed Trump to spread lies unhindered? Probably not.