The Trump campaign is reportedly 'discussing contingency plans to bypass election results'

If your waiting for an apology, try holding your breath. You will be forced to take a breath a hundred years before you get an apology from me on this subject. You wrote the OP. You failed to research the validity of the material contained in the article. You then asked on question. Whether conservatives would back the idea. I answered that Question. Since you failed to research the material before posting your OP you were just parroting the article. BTW, at no point in post 40 did you say that you were going beyond the article.

You still have not research the subject fully:

Pennsylvania: By presidential nominee

The presidential nominee for each party nominates electors to the Pennsylvania Secretary of State. The vice presidential nominee may be asked to nominate electors at the presidential nominee’s discretion.

The State Legislature has nothing to do with the process of nominating the delegates. Further, the individual parties that win delegates will not know how many they are entitled to if the elections are certified. So, the article is based on fictitious information. It is designed to confuse the reader into believing something is happening when it isn't. In this case, it has made you question the President's motives for doing certain things. You have fallen for it. The proof is the fact that you clearly think the President wants the SCOTUS at full strength in order to answer challenges to the elections. Strangely enough, I pointed out how that is necessary in other posts.

Since you seem to love hypotheticals, try this one. There are 33 states that have automatic recount laws based on the margin of victory, and 17 states that have triggers that are not automatic for calling for recounts. I have pointed out that Pennsylvania requires three qualified electors to sign a petition stating that there was fraud or an error in the tabulation within that precinct. I also pointed out that I expect that the Democrats had three in every precinct ready to claim that there was a problem. (I said Democrats, but I should have said both the DNC and GOP.) If there is no challenge to the counties/precincts results, then there is no reason the results can not be certified. In Pennsylvania, the results are certified by the same Sec of State that appoints the Delegates. Therefore, there is no validity in the article. But as I said, there are procedures for recounts in every state. You can bet that there will be multiple states that will go through the recount process. In 2016, there were 5 which included Pennsylvania. After the recount, the Sec of State will certify the results. That is when the parties will challenge the results. Some will make it to the courts system, and there is a definite possibility that the SCOTUS will issue the final decision in those challenges. Now, what would happen if the SCOTUS ended up tied 4 to 4. Who would be President then? Answer: Wait for it... Wait for it....Pelosi! That's right. According to the US Constitution, if no President could be seated, it would fall to the VP. But the VP is the subject to the same election as the President. Therefore, it falls to the next person which is the Speaker of the House. Now, you might not have a problem with that, but you can bet, a large portion of the population would. Give one person control of one of the Legislature branch. as well as the Executive branch. That is too much power for anyone.

BTW, in the original version of post #40, you said that the President would choose loyal delegates for the state of Pennsylvania if the results are not certified. In order to do that, the President would have to certify the results himself. How else will be know how many delegates to assign to each party? Remember, the winning candidate is not the only one to get Electoral Delegates in each state. So, you were wrong in you first version, and in your revision. It is really not hard to find the correct answers. It just takes some real research. I did it. I have no doubt that you can do it too.

 

Well, you didn't read it, because there WAS a named source, the freaking Chairman of the Pennsylvania Republican Party. Read the source again, please.

 

What part of this you didn't understand (it's there in post #40)?

"and wouldn't think deeper about possible scenarios even beyond what the article is saying."

OK, I grant you that it's not the State Legislature. It doesn't make that much of a difference because the Secretary of State in Pennsylvania is a Republican. The point remains.

That would be true of a huge mess in multiple states, not if a couple of swing states are in play this way. In Bush v. Gore it was only Florida. Like you and I said, the SCOTUS would then rule.

No, I didn't say that. Don't lie. You quoted the early version, so you have preserved it. Look again, am I saying that the President does the picking? Here, from what you preserved:

So, au contraire, I said "they would select" (right after I was addressing Pennsylvania officials) and "Pennsylvania names" - in no way, shape, or form, I said that Trump would be the one doing it. So, how do you go from Pennsylvania names the delegates, to Trump names the delegates???

Shame on you. Aren't you ashamed of telling bald face lies like this and putting words (that he never issued) in the mouth of a debate opponent? Is this honest? Jesus. And you don't think you owe me an apology? Okaaaayyy...

I mean, whatever. I don't really need an apology. It was more of a sarcastic way of speaking. But readers of this thread have the proof of what you are trying to do and it is shameful. See if you learn to debate without telling lies about what your opponent said. That would be helpful. As you like to say, it's friendly advice.

 

Oh. I thought you were talking about the Trump campaign.

Aside from that:
No such person was named, and no such thing was said by any such person.
Disagree?
Copy/paste the text.

 

Oh really? You guys have a very peculiar way of looking into things... Like your colleague there, the one I just called out for lying about what I said. Here, what part of this you don't understand, right at the end of the article? And yes, he said in all words that he discussed that WITH THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN!!! Dammit!

"Lawrence Tabas, chair of the Pennsylvania Republican Party, also told The Atlantic he has discussed the direct appointment of electors with the Trump campaign, saying, "I've mentioned it to them, and I hope they're thinking about it too."

No such person was named??? Come again???

 

This is not an example of anyone, in the Trump campaign or otherwise, working to bypass the election results as the statement was made in the context of an election where the results were in limbo due to court challenges, et al.
See, you cannot bypass results that do not exist.

Care to try again?

 

Your whole statement is false. I have tried to explain why, but your so bent out of shape that claimed that you were parroting the article, that you are ignoring the facts. You are still not researching the subject. First, there is no reason that the Sec of State will not certify the elections. So, let's take that out of the equation. The Sec of State in Pennsylvania will do the same thing the Sec of State in Florida did in 2000. He will certify the election results as they were presented to him at the time of elections. Unless there is a recount as the procedures that I have already provided. If there is a recount, then the elections will certify the election after the recount. I have provided you a link to the actual process of what triggers a recount, and the Pennsylvania law on how the election is certified. So, we can take the recount out of the equation also. That only leaves a court challenge. The court that accepts the challenge will issue a temporary stay to stop the Sec of State from appointing delegates until a final court verdict. Now, there are a lot of levels for the challenge to get through, and no one (especially the courts) want a delay in seating the President. So, the courts will issue ruling fairly quickly. Eventually, it will get to the SCOTUS which is the reason that the President wants to have a full panel of Justices. It is a simple common sense move to ensure that our form of Democracy remains intact.

Contrary to what the TheWeek has told you, there is no way the President, or any political party can change the votes in any state. A recent SCOTUS ruling actually reinforced that point. Several states had changed the states laws to allow the Sec of State to award their state's delegates based on the national popular vote instead of their own state's popular vote. The SCOTUS ruled unanimously that the states must award delegates based on the states vote and not the popular vote.

Try researching what happened in Florida in 2000. It might clear up your misunderstandings.

 

What?
No need to try again. The quote states that a NAMED GOP official has discussed the possibility with the Trump campaign. Period, full stop.

Care to address your blunder in saying that no such person was named by the article, when he was?

 

You didn't address your blatant lie when you said - falsely - that I said that the President would be the one picking the delegates. Then you tried to say I said it before I edited the post, which is another lie since you've preserved the original post in your quote (unlucky you, huh?) and it shows that I had not said it at all, much the opposite. You didn't acknowledge your blatant lie. As such, you earned my Ignore list. Before I place you there, let me just say, you still didn't understand my point. It seems like it flies above your head. If there is NO RESOLUTION of multiple challenges by the deadline to certify the results and name the electors and no resolution of recounts which can be challenged too, then it is possible that they will name the electors regardless of the results as long as the courts agree. Like the freaking Chairman of the Pennsylvania Republican Party said, there would be the possibility of directly naming the electors. It seems like you believe that you know Pennsylvania law better than he does.

I NEVER SAID THAT THE PRESIDENT CAN CHANGE IT, DAMMIT!!! Your dishonest lie continues, so, welcome to my Ignore list. I won't continue to debate with someone who puts words in my mouth that I've never issued. Have a nice and long life.

 

Allow me to type more slowly:
This is not an example of anyone, in the Trump campaign or otherwise, working to bypass the election results as the statement was made in the context of an election where the results were in limbo due to court challenges, et al.
See, you cannot bypass results that do not exist.
Period. Full stop.

I then accept your concession of the point - the premise laid out in the OP is, by the virtue of the fact there is no demonstrable plot to "bypass election results" by anyone, false.

 

Even if the premise were false, the point of my OP which has completely escaped you although I repeated it several times in the very body of that OP, was, IF this were true, if you'd support it or not.

And the contested results, as per post #40, was me thinking about it BEYOND the article, which I said in all letters, but it seems like you guys must have a reading comprehension problem.

I mean, what was I thinking? I came here to ask a question of conservatives and Republicans... warned them several times that the issue I was getting at was NOT if the article was indeed accurate... but if they'd support the president if something like this DID happen...

But no, you guys had to do exactly what I invited you not to do.

Predictable, really. I should have known better. So, I don't even know why I tried. I'm no longer inclined to even revisit this thread regardless of other opinions or answers issued here, because you guys apparently can't comprehend what I was getting at, and if you can, you can't resist the impulse to stray from the premise, not to forget the people who tried to put words in my mouth and told lies about what I was saying.

Over and out. Please don't even bother responding. This discussion is useless. /thread

 

There's no if.
The fact it is false negates any conjectural point you think you can make.

 

Did you not begin this thread by linking to an article stating that the President was looking for ways to bypass the election results. Isn't that the title of your thread. I did not create the thread. You did. So, how can the President's Campaign bypass the vote if they are not involved in the process. Answer: They can't.

LET ME APPOLOGISE FOR MISREADING YOUR ORIGINAL POST IN CLAIMING THAT YOU SAID THE PRESIDENT WOULD PICK THE DELEGATES FOR THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA IF THERE IS NO RESOLUTION OF THE CHALLENGE TO THE VOTE COUNT IN THAT STATE. I MISREAD THE STATEMENT, AND FOR THAT I AM TRULY SORRY. PLEASE FORGIVE ME!!! Will that
suffice, or do you want a burnt offering also!!!

Your assumption that there can be a situation where there is no resolution to the count only works if there is an evenly balanced SCOTUS. As happened with the 4th District Court of Appeals ruling on DACA. The SCOTUS vote on the challenge of the ruling ended in a 4 to 4 tie (Scalia's seat was empty at the time). The case was sent back to the lower courts with no action taken. Even though Scalia's seat has been filled for nearly 4 years the case has not been revisited. With a full bench, the only way there will be a tie vote is if someone abstains from voting. I doubt that would happen. Therefore, the SCOTUS would issue the final ruling, and that is the end of it. There is no further course of appeal. So, your statements to the contrary is wrong. There is no way for the President's Campaign Staff to bypass the election results.

So good luck to you, and live long and prosper !!!!!

 

if Trump is successful at winning the election by cancelling millions of absentee and mail-ballots, peaceful secession is in order.

stealing two supreme court justices and an election, is more then we can handle.

 

You and your fellow liberals need to go back and read the US Constitution. Pay particular attention to the duties and timeframes of those that responsible for nominating and approving a SCOTUS Justice. If you bothered to do the research, you would notice that nothing that the GOP or the President has done is illegal, nor unconstitutional. So, no on stole anything. The only negative thing that you can say is that the GOP has acted hypocritically. But the same thing can be said of the DNC. If it was right for Obama to appoint a replacement for Scalia, then it is just as right for President Trump to replace Ginsburg. That fact does not change.

The only absentee ballots, which are the same as mail-in ballots, that will be not counted are the ones that are not properly filled out, and mailed back with every I dotted and T crossed. This is no different in then the situation back in 2000 with the hanging chads. Since these ballots will not be filled out in the presence of poll workers, then there has to be a process to ensure only the votes that have been cast properly counts. That way they can limit people from changing someone else's vote, or someone casting a vote for someone else. It makes sense to have a legitimate process in place. The fact is that I have pointed out several times that the push for absentee voting is in fact an attempt to disenfranchising minorities and the poor. At least it is in this state. Further, it is totally unnecessary. Here the law states that absentee ballots are only sent out upon request. That request is supposed to be made online, but they have allowed in person requesting at the local elections office. What are we seeing now? Long lines outside the voting office to register for absentee ballots. They do not think it is safe to vote in person the day of the elections, but they will stand in line (many without masks, and refusing to social distance) in order to go into an office that is more closed in then a polling place to register the get a ballot by mail. In my opinion, these people have obviously not thought it through. They are just acting like a bunch of sheep.

What has not changed in the law is that first time voters can not vote by absentee unless they have a medical certification on file that they are disabled or a shut in, or can prove that they will be out of the area that day. There is also a big breakdown in communication. A lot of people do not know that they have to request an absentee ballot. In the city that I live in, there is a population of just over 31,000. The census data shows that the city is 77% African-American and 40% lives under the poverty level. Yet, as of Friday Afternoon, there were only 250 requests for absentee ballots. That is actually well short of this point in 2016. The reason is that people around here, think that the ballots will be sent to the automatically. I have tried to tell some of those that live around me the facts, but they do not believe me. Their waiting around for something that is not going to happen. As a result, they will have to vote in person with the whole voter ID in place, or they will not be voting. Maybe, the local residents will prove to be smarter then those in the capital city that is standing in long lines. We will know in November.

 

President Trump would be left with no choice, because in the last election there were so many shenanigans by the Democrats, and especially in the inner cities, that had Trump not won, there would have been a recount.

What I'm curious about is how you can post this knowing that Hillary Clinton and Al Gore told Biden not to concede the election under any circumstance? I read the Democrats are preparing their lawyers to fight tooth and nail, and if the Democrats have anything, it is lawyers.

Of course Clinton and Gore might have their own nefarious reason for saying this, knowing that if the Democrats don't concede then Pelosi could become president. Would the Democrats risk a civil war and put our nation in jeopardy? You bet they would! Logic and reasoning isn't their strong point.

H E E H A W!

The media's bought
and on our side,
to help us hide
our 'franken' pride,

of lies, deceits, illicit gain,
hypocrisy and willful shame
of nation; that you all hold dear
while we could care less - Jeannette

​