Trump 2024 — The second term

[Ingomike]

You really live in your own reality.

Most votes gets the electors. How did that not happen? The final tallies are out there for you to see. You just don't like the numbers or how they got to them. You are conflating two different things.

If the tallies were obtained in a manner other than directed by the legislature they are flat unconstitutional. You are trying to separate the inseparable.

What does the constitution say about selecting electors? Was that followed?

 

[Tombs]

While we're on the subject that was previously discussed here.. Trump's on and off pal Tucker Carlson says he would oppose a Trump/Haley ticket.

Tucker Carlson says Haley as Trump VP would be reason ‘to oppose ticket’

Conservative pundit Tucker Carlson said he would oppose former President Trump in the 2024 election if he were to choose Nikki Haley, Trump’s former ambassador to the United Nations, as a vic…

thehill.com

“I would not only not vote for that ticket, I would advocate against it as strongly as I could,” Carlson said this week during an interview with conservative media personality Tim Pool.

“That’s just poison,” Carlson added, blasting Haley as “not left, but … neoliberal in the darkest, most … nihilistic way” and saying she “has no real popular support.”

Carlson called Haley a “creature of the oligarchs” and said her joining Trump’s campaign “would be reason to oppose the ticket.”

Edit: Btw as a side note I a don't think Tim Pool would describe himself as a "conservative" I believe he considers himself to be more "libertarian/right" leaning.

And Tucker is right, but so many voters never listen to policy or ideas, they simply vote for who ever they think looks best, and then try to come up with some mental gymnastics to defend their choice.

 

[jamil]

If the tallies were obtained in a manner other than directed by the legislature they are flat unconstitutional. You are trying to separate the inseparable.

What does the constitution say about selecting electors? Was that followed?

Your whole angle has been that you think the election was stolen which implies that tallies were obtained blah, blah, blah.

It’s your opinion until that all is sussed out in court. So. You got that? What? No? Then it’s what it is.

 

[Ingomike]

Your whole angle has been that you think the election was stolen which implies that tallies were obtained blah, blah, blah.

It’s your opinion until that all is sussed out in court. So. You got that? What? No? Then it’s what it is.

And people like you are why TPTB were not forced to reckon with the cases. The left made it clear if the courts got involved in the election they would burn them down. The courts played dead throughout. But the right, they are sooo nice. What are the rules, ok we follow them…

…Right off the cliff…

 

[bwframe]

Maine bars Trump from ballot as US Supreme Court weighs states' authority to block former president

Maine’s Democratic secretary of state on Thursday removed former President Donald Trump from the state’s presidential primary ballot under the Constitution’s insurrection clause, becoming the first election official to take action unilaterally as the U.S. Supreme Court is poised to decide...

news.yahoo.com

 

[foszoe]

If the tallies were obtained in a manner other than directed by the legislature they are flat unconstitutional. You are trying to separate the inseparable.

What does the constitution say about selecting electors? Was that followed?

Says the legislature decides how not who

 

[Ingomike]

You really live in your own reality.

Most votes gets the electors. How did that not happen? The final tallies are out there for you to see. You just don't like the numbers or how they got to them. You are conflating two different things.

Your whole angle has been that you think the election was stolen which implies that tallies were obtained blah, blah, blah.

It’s your opinion until that all is sussed out in court. So. You got that? What? No? Then it’s what it is.

So this is the clause I am referring to

“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; but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States shall be appointed an Elector.”

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

You guys keep saying this:

“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature, unless there is a declared emergency order, then the governor, the SOS, or the courts, 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; but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States shall be appointed an Elector.”

And I keep seeing this:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, unless there is a declared emergency order, then the governor, the SOS, or the courts may infringe.”

If one constitutional provision is vulnerable, they all are…

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Maine bars Trump from ballot as US Supreme Court weighs states' authority to block former president

Maine’s Democratic secretary of state on Thursday removed former President Donald Trump from the state’s presidential primary ballot under the Constitution’s insurrection clause, becoming the first election official to take action unilaterally as the U.S. Supreme Court is poised to decide...

news.yahoo.com

View attachment 321872

When your ethics are situational you have no sense of hypocrisy.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

LOL

 

[Ingomike]

When your ethics are situational you have no sense of hypocrisy.

View attachment 321884

Bellows, a former ACLU attorney and Democrat…

 

[bwframe]

 

[BugI02]

Is this why they picked Eastman to present as their most "preeminent constitutional scholar in the US" because he has an "established track record of success in performing the operation that they were contemplating many times with a high percentage of success?" or was it the best they could get who would go along with their scheme? One in which he himself wasn't confident in the untested legal theory that Pence had the constitutional authority to stop the official State certified elector count before Congress, and acknowledged according to Glen Jacobs (Pence's legal counsel) that the strategy would most likely lose 9-0 in front of SCOTUS but went along with the plan anyway.

Please endeavor to wrap your head around a simple fact. I am not defending Eastman nor do I think he has the record of accomplishment that would have me accord him the status of expert anything. What I have a problem with is people saying Trump needs a lawyer with a Harvard or a Yale pedigree. The same caveat applies, just because they went to Harvard or Yale doesn't automatically endow them with that record of accomplishment. The old boy network likely makes it easier to get a job with a pricier firm but that says nothing about the ability of the individual. Obama or Jackson are the quintessential examples that a Harvard pedigree isn't all of that. They both leveraged their credentials to the max, but I wouldn't want either one to represent me in a legal matter if they had to rely on their smarts

Credentialism is a REALLY expensive participation trophy

 

[BugI02]

Is this why they picked Eastman to present as their most "preeminent constitutional scholar in the US" because he has an "established track record of success in performing the operation that they were contemplating many times with a high percentage of success?" or was it the best they could get who would go along with their scheme? One in which he himself wasn't confident in the untested legal theory that Pence had the constitutional authority to stop the official State certified elector count before Congress, and acknowledged according to Glen Jacobs (Pence's legal counsel) that the strategy would most likely lose 9-0 in front of SCOTUS but went along with the plan anyway.

The next question - well, two questions - is, should a lawyer have to be afraid to argue a novel legal theory in front of the Supreme Court, such that so many are reluctant to do so and should council be afraid to take a case because they might lose? Are they like prize fighters who only want to take fights they can win easily to pad their records? Those guys usually go down faster than Lewinsky when they have to face a real challenge - and I'm not aware that they ever discount their fees or offer refunds if they do happen to lose, so the only cost to them is prestige

 

[BugI02]

I think you need to parse the conversation a bit more if you think this is what I'm arguing for. We both agree that "credentialism" is not good. You don't have to convince me on that. I can add plenty to the examples of how credentialism is a scam.

My contention is that credentialism is irrelevant to the conversation about Eastman, because no one has done that. But, I think credentialism is an interesting side-topic to get into.

But the post that prompted my initial response was belittling Eastman because he did not have elite credentials - and that is the totality of my disagreement. Trump could have easily drawn just as weak a player from an elite firm who would have the Golden Fleece sheepskin. The difference would be such a firm would not refuse to take the case because they believed the constitutional issues were settled, it would be because they didn't see a guaranteed win as well as the possibility of being black-balled from legal work for FedGov and/or progressive organizations. It would likely be an economic decision, not a determination of the legal merits. That is a dangerous precedent for justice (the real kind, not the kind dirt balls are calling for for other dirt balls)

This is the reason I argue we on the right should have well funded NGOs that can take on thorny cases without needing to worry about anything but the legal merits

 

[jamil]

And people like you are why TPTB were not forced to reckon with the cases. The left made it clear if the courts got involved in the election they would burn them down. The courts played dead throughout. But the right, they are sooo nice. What are the rules, ok we follow them…

…Right off the cliff…

What the hell other course do you have? I don’t think it’s people like me trying to head off the cliff. You don’t think it’s you. So here we are. Everyone is a me too.

 

[jamil]

Maine bars Trump from ballot as US Supreme Court weighs states' authority to block former president

Maine’s Democratic secretary of state on Thursday removed former President Donald Trump from the state’s presidential primary ballot under the Constitution’s insurrection clause, becoming the first election official to take action unilaterally as the U.S. Supreme Court is poised to decide...

news.yahoo.com

View attachment 321872

That court decision is even more obvious than CO.

 

[Ingomike]

What the hell other course do you have? I don’t think it’s people like me trying to head off the cliff. You don’t think it’s you. So here we are. Everyone is a me too.

The right must stand up to the institutions and let them know that capitulating to the left is not acceptable and there are ramifications if they do.

While you were on INGO demanding CNN links to the election anomalies rather than demanding investigations, some of us were contributing funds to the fight, calling representatives, exposing the details to others the media did not want out.

 

[BugI02]

And Tucker is right, but so many voters never listen to policy or ideas, they simply vote for who ever they think looks best, and then try to come up with some mental gymnastics to defend their choice.

Did you see Haley said the Civil War was mostly about states rights rather than slavery? She lost the votes of the Houghmade wing of INGO right there!

 

[jamil]

So this is the clause I am referring to

“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; but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States shall be appointed an Elector.”

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

You guys keep saying this:

“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature, unless there is a declared emergency order, then the governor, the SOS, or the courts, 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; but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States shall be appointed an Elector.”

And I keep seeing this:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, unless there is a declared emergency order, then the governor, the SOS, or the courts may infringe.”

If one constitutional provision is vulnerable, they all are…

You can look at my post history on the subject of EO’s. See how much authority I think they should have.

Once again you’re trying to analyze my *is* statement with your *ought* belief. I made no judgement that an emergency order *should* override constitutional rights. I said that several states made changes to how elections were conducted under the cover of emergency orders and that a court would need to intervene.

Ingomike can’t just unilaterally declare it and everyone bows and obeys. It’s like right after the election you thought that the sheer self evidence of the rampant election fraud should mean the presidency must revert to Trump automatically. Well, the other side said no. So who settles that? Hmm?

 

[BugI02]

So this is the clause I am referring to

“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; but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States shall be appointed an Elector.”

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

You guys keep saying this:

“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature, unless there is a declared emergency order, then the governor, the SOS, or the courts, 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; but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States shall be appointed an Elector.”

And I keep seeing this:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, unless there is a declared emergency order, then the governor, the SOS, or the courts may infringe.”

If one constitutional provision is vulnerable, they all are…

No, Mike. I think what they actually are trying to say is that a challenge to the appointed or approved slate of electors has to come from inside that state. If power centers in any given state were in disagreement with the slate of appointed electors, Pence would have been able to act - but only to refer the issue to both chambers for resolution. Without an authority in any given state taking up a challenge to the slate of electors, there is no provision for Trump being able to impose his own slate. The clause giving the state legislatures what seems to be sole authority to determine the manner of choosing the electors means the legal challenge must come from them, not the candidate