Trump 2024 ???

[jamil]

Please show me the word certified in the constitution…

Please show me “home owners association” in the constitution.

 

[jamil]

Okay, sarcasm aside, have you read article II?

 

[Ingomike]

Okay, sarcasm aside, have you read article II?

Did you not see my post earlier today where I pasted in part of it?

Point being it doesn't take a constitutional scholar to understand how electors are determined, the language is pretty clear, and if those electors were determined in THE way the legislature directed,that too is easily discernible.

No court needed…

 

[KLB]

No it is not. Reread your copy of the constitution.

"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.

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.”

The legislature directs the appointment of electors. That is it. If the electors are appointed in a way not directed by the legislature they are unconstitutional.

It is unbelievable to me that so many are worried about anything and everything but violations of what the constitution says…

Dude, point to the part where the Fed has any say. They can say when they will cast their votes, that is it.

Electors are chosen to vote for the candidate that got the most votes. That didn't change. You don't like the way the votes were counted, but that is a separate issue. It is all on the state to say how it all works, and the fight it out if they think there is something wrong with what happened. Nobody from outside the state has any say in the outcome.

 

[KLB]

Did you not see my post earlier today where I pasted in part of it?

Point being it doesn't take a constitutional scholar to understand how electors are determined, the language is pretty clear, and if those electors were determined in THE way the legislature directed,that too is easily discernible.

No court needed…

They were. The guy with the most votes got the electors. Easy peasey.

 

[Ingomike]

They were. The guy with the most votes got the electors. Easy peasey.

Why do you defend the trashing of the constitution so vigorously? The votes were not obtained constitutionally. For example, the Wisconsin Supreme Court said so, albeit years after the election.

 

[jamil]

Did you not see my post earlier today where I pasted in part of it?

Point being it doesn't take a constitutional scholar to understand how electors are determined, the language is pretty clear, and if those electors were determined in THE way the legislature directed,that too is easily discernible.

No court needed…

I don’t agree. However will we resolve this disagreement between us? If only there were…Idunno. A part of government created to resolve disputes. I really think that’s a hole in our system of government.

I think there should be some kind of system that has people who judge matters in dispute. Like our dispute. They could wear special robes. And decide stuff. Wouldn’t that be awesome? Otherwise, our dispute here will never be resolved.

 

[Ingomike]

I don’t agree. However will we resolve this disagreement between us? If only there were…Idunno. A part of government created to resolve disputes. I really think that’s a hole in our system of government.

I think there should be some kind of system that has people who judge matters in dispute. Like our dispute. They could wear special robes. And decide stuff. Wouldn’t that be awesome? Otherwise, our dispute here will never be resolved.

EVERYONE swears an oath to protect and defend the constitution from the President to the plebe. There is no admonition that occurs after robed gods tell them what to do.

This has actually been enlightening as to a major problem in this country, the bureaucracy has propagandized the people so long they now are incapable of thinking without bureaucratic decisions.

The courts do have a constitutional role as well but everyone has their own constitutional duties all along…

 

[indyblue]

No. If Trump's team went through with the plan as alleged, which was to send the slates of electors as if certified, but not actually certified by the states, they're fake.

Fani's Scam: Electors Were Not ‘Fake’ - The American Spectator | USA News and PoliticsThe American Spectator | USA News and Politics

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’ RICO indictment charges Donald Trump and 18 others with criminally conspiring to overturn Georgia’s 2020

spectator.org

Well, as with so much else in Willis’ fanciful indictment, it turns out that the “fake electors” claim is complete nonsense. And even worse, it has come to light that, when Willis and her team of creative writers drafted the indictment, they were in possession of a transcript of a December 14, 2020 meeting of the Georgia Republican electors that thoroughly undermines the prosecution’s “fake electors” fantasy. The transcript spells out in detail that the Republican’s designation of alternate electors was not part of a scam. To the contrary, the clearly stated purpose was to legally preserve Trump’s ongoing legal challenge to Georgia’s election results.

That transcript begins with Chairman (and now Defendant) Shafer calling to order “this meeting of the Republican nominees for the Electoral College from the State of Georgia.” (Emphasis added)

“The President [Trump] has filed a contest to the certified returns,” Shafer continued. “That contest has — is pending. It’s not been decided or even heard by any judge with the authority to hear it. And so, in order to preserve his rights, it’s important that the Republican nominees for Presidential Elector meet here today and cast their votes.” (Emphasis added)

“Ray Smith is a lawyer for President Trump. Do you wish to make any comments at this time?”

Smith replied, “Yes. We’re — we’re conducting this as Chairman Shafer said, we’re conducting this because of the contest of the election in Georgia is ongoing. And so we continue to contest the election of the electors in Georgia. And so we’re going to conduct this in accordance with the Constitution of the United States, and we’re going to conduct the electorate (sic) today similar to what happened in 1960 in Hawaii.” (Emphasis added)

 

[Ingomike]

Fani's Scam: Electors Were Not ‘Fake’ - The American Spectator | USA News and PoliticsThe American Spectator | USA News and Politics

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’ RICO indictment charges Donald Trump and 18 others with criminally conspiring to overturn Georgia’s 2020

spectator.org

He ignores all this, I posted it last week, he loves to quote the indictments. The indictments excite him like nothing since the details of the Moscow pee in the bed story.

 

[Ziggidy]

I’ve never seen nor heard of a person who is so obsessed with the obvious political attack on an opponent say they would vote for the person if they won the primary. I have come to the conclusion that the narrative of some here Is nothing more than an arm of the left to reach more individuals to second guess a political opponent; Trump.

 

[jamil]

He ignores all this, I posted it last week, he loves to quote the indictments. The indictments excite him like nothing since the details of the Moscow pee in the bed story.

You guys are eager to leave stuff out.

 

[oze]

I’ve never seen nor heard of a person who is so obsessed with the obvious political attack on an opponent say they would vote for the person if they won the primary. I have come to the conclusion that the narrative of some here Is nothing more than an arm of the left to reach more individuals to second guess a political opponent; Trump.

So you missed all of the "I'll hold my nose and vote for Trump if he gets the Republican nomination" comments? By several INGOts? What I haven't seen is a single Trump supporter here stating that they would vote for anyone but Trump in the general election. Oh, except for one who said that he would vote for Biden.

 

[KLB]

Why do you defend the trashing of the constitution so vigorously? The votes were not obtained constitutionally. For example, the Wisconsin Supreme Court said so, albeit years after the election.

Votes and electors are different issues. You can claim the votes weren't fair, but until it is proven in a timely manner in a state court of law, you are doing nothing but blowing hit air. Without that proof, the candidate that received the most votes gets the electors.

I am defending nothing. I am saying that is how it is.

 

[Ingomike]

Votes and electors are different issues. You can claim the votes weren't fair, but until it is proven in a timely manner in a state court of law, you are doing nothing but blowing hit air. Without that proof, the candidate that received the most votes gets the electors.

I am defending nothing. I am saying that is how it is.

If the election is run differently than the legislature directed, no matter the counts, is that not an unconstitutional election and certifying those elections a violation of their oath?

 

[KLB]

If the election is run differently than the legislature directed, no matter the counts, is that not an unconstitutional election and certifying those elections a violation of their oath?

No. How a state runs an election is not covered by the Constitution. It may be unlawful, but that again has to play out in state court.

 

[Ingomike]

No. How a state runs an election is not covered by the Constitution. It may be unlawful, but that again has to play out in state court.

Got it. What the constitution says doesn’t have any power. WOW! So why did the framers say that it should be done as directed by the legislature if anyone can make any process they wish to? So if states decide that the second only applies to their militia that would be cool as well?

 

[jamil]

If the election is run differently than the legislature directed, no matter the counts, is that not an unconstitutional election and certifying those elections a violation of their oath?

That has to be adjudicated. You saying it doesn't make it so. I happen to think that you're correct though not to the extent you believe (no reason to believe the Kraken stories, for example). But there's another side to it and I'm pretty sure they'll disagree. And that has to be adjudicated.

The point we're making about the two separate issues is an important part of your the disagreement here. The votes were certified by the states according to the law, notwithstanding the shenanigans. Did the shenanigans affect the outcome? At best you can say you think so. But you guys act like they did some ****, so now you can call do-over like we're on the playground. It just doesn't work that way.

 

[jamil]

Got it. What the constitution says doesn’t have any power. WOW! So why did the framers say that it should be done as directed by the legislature if anyone can make any process they wish to? So if states decide that the second only applies to their militia that would be cool as well?

He didn't say that. That's just your interpretation.

How does it get settled as being illegal? You don't get to just call it. Like I said, this isn't the playground where Mikey gets to call it. We have courts for that.

 

[jamil]

If the election is run differently than the legislature directed, no matter the counts, is that not an unconstitutional election and certifying those elections a violation of their oath?

Don't you have to prove somewhere that the election was not run as directed? Wouldn't that be the courts? I really am at a loss for why you think like this. It's very unconstitutional thinking.