Trump 2024 ???

[jamil]

Sure it does

ped·ant
noun
a person who is excessively concerned with minor details and rules or with displaying academic learning

The secretary of sate informs the party judged to have won the election that their slate of electors will be sent to DC. Is that not equivalent to 'certifying' that slate of electors, even if that is not the exact word used

cer·ti·fy
verb
attest or confirm in a formal statement.
officially recognize (someone or something) as possessing certain qualifications or meeting certain standards.

I don’t think that is what you were asserting. That it can be construed after the fact is merely convenient. But I’ll give you that anyway. I’m forgiving debt this year.

 

[bwframe]

Hate Or Love Him.. This is Gold

#hate #love #gold Subscribe to my Secondary channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvEPohtPdCW0pOUhbFi6WHQCOPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER Under Section 107 of the co...

www.youtube.com

 

[DoggyDaddy]

ped·ant
noun
a person who is excessively concerned with minor details and rules or with displaying academic learning

Isn't that everyone participating in this thread?

 

[jamil]

You'd be pedantic too if someone ate that last piece of pie you were counting on. I'm still pissed about that.

 

[BugI02]

I think he should be able to say exactly what she did to change it. I haven't seen anything changed. As far as I can tell, both Trump and Biden chose their slates of electors. The election was done. She certified the results. She notified Biden's electors and directed them to do their duties. What manor did she change?

I think they were thinking that the SoS certified the election instead of the legislature, unaware that the state law delegates authority to the SoS to certify elections, just like it does in Indiana. And I think they think that because some right wing propaganda told them that this was the case. They were lied to. They trusted whatever source of information told them that. And now they have to come to terms with that lie.

You are too caught up in the specifics of PA, which was just an exemplar

The point in contention is some saying that Pence could not do anything other than rubber stamp the slates of electors he was given, he didn't have the power to reject electors. I'm sure Pence would like everyone to believe that

I am attempting to show that is not correct in all circumstances, although PA did not provide those same circumstances

 

[BugI02]

Isn't that everyone participating in this thread?

You just participated in this thread

Welcome to the dark side

 

[BugI02]

You'd be pedantic too if someone ate that last piece of pie you were counting on. I'm still pissed about that.

We still have home made cherry pie, but it's going fast

 

[DoggyDaddy]

You just participated in this thread

Welcome to the dark side

Oh no. I'm just a drive-by poster. Carry on! I just jump to the last post in the thread to get it off my latest posts list.

 

[BugI02]

Oh no. I'm just a drive-by poster. Carry on! I just jump to the last post in the thread to get it off my latest posts list.

Su-u-u-re you do

 

[jamil]

No, they have not as yet reclaimed their authority. Now extend that knowledge just a bit further

Reclaimed their authority? Indiana's legislature hasn't reclaimed their authority either then? Or Ohio. Michigan. Some states I've checked have a board of canvassers who certify results. Some an election Chief. Most I've check so far, the SoS certifies them. This is all according to their state law. I've yet to find a state who's legislature certifies results. There is nothing here that insinuates something constitutionally untoward about a state legislature delegating the authority to certify elections to some state entity. But most importantly, nothing happened in Pennsylvania that was unconstitutional about who certified the election results, and how the electors were chosen.

If the legislature HAD NOT passed a law allowing the SoS to certify the election, would that slate of electors have been selected according to the constitution

And if the legislature judged that that slate was NOT certified in a constitutionally valid manner, would they not be within their rights to put forth an alternate slate of electors

And finally, most crucially, at the time of Pence's failure of nerve (prior to amendments made to the rules governing the VPs powers) would Pence have not been within his rights to reject the slate of electors that were not supported by their state legislature

I mean. Like is this your attempt for a save? Because none of this helps the complain you've been trying to make. So you're right about Pence because it could have happened? Is that the win you're willing to settle for? I mean. I'm in a surprisingly generous mood given that someone ate my ****ing pie. But it's too far a leap of logic. I'm not gonna give you that one. Pence had no justification to do anything of the sort given the conditions. It wasn't a failure of nerves, it was an onslaught of common sense flooding him all at once.

 

[jamil]

You are too caught up in the specifics of PA, which was just an exemplar

The point in contention is some saying that Pence could not do anything other than rubber stamp the slates of electors he was given, he didn't have the power to reject electors. I'm sure Pence would like everyone to believe that

I am attempting to show that is not correct in all circumstances, although PA did not provide those same circumstances

You are attempting that now, after we've established that PA din-do nuffin unconstitutional that could give Pence justification to reject PA electors' votes. But like I said to Mike, I hope you are pissed at the sources that lied to you and told you that the SoS certifying election results was unconstitutional.

 

[jamil]

Oh no. I'm just a drive-by poster. Carry on! I just jump to the last post in the thread to get it off my latest posts list.

Everyone is welcome. There's space for all. Join in the conversation. Peace be upon you.

 

[jamil]

We still have home made cherry pie, but it's going fast

Oh man. That's my second favorite. I'm totally jealous.

 

[jamil]

All we got left is pumpkin.

 

[Twangbanger]

All we got left is pumpkin.

Stop the steal. If you think a family member usurped the timing and/or manor of consumption of your apple pie, you can consume the "competing plate" of pumpkin pie, report it to the authorities, and they can reject the outcome, engage in discovery, and require a new "do-over" pie be to be baked for you.

I'm frankly disappointed those who purport to be pie-lovers were unaware of this.

 

[jamil]

Well. That’s well and good, that plan. But then I’d have to consume pumpkin pie. And. That kinda brings up unpleasant thoughts. Can’t I just reject the alternate plate of pie?

 

[BugI02]

You are attempting that now, after we've established that PA din-do nuffin unconstitutional that could give Pence justification to reject PA electors' votes. But like I said to Mike, I hope you are pissed at the sources that lied to you and told you that the SoS certifying election results was unconstitutional.

Sigh. Go back and see how this tangent started. It is a long way back, with claims of Trump breaching his oath of office. Make your own judgement, I'm running out of ****s

It was never about PA, that was a hypothetical. I didn't even know the particulars of how PA did things until I looked them up as the whole discussion ran off into the weeds

Simple yes or no: Under the right circumstances (and we have enumerated those), would Pence have had the power to reject a slate of electors on 6 Jan 2020

 

[foszoe]

Isn't that everyone participating in this thread?

Don't be so rough on yourself

 

[foszoe]

Oh no. I'm just a drive-by poster. Carry on! I just jump to the last post in the thread to get it off my latest posts list.

Can always use Mark all as read.....I think you need just a little taste

 

[manifest destiny]

And then Tulsi Gabbard pulled Kamala’s pants down in the spotlight

Well, this thread is finally making some progress.