Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If there is a question about any votes, they can't be certified until the problem has been solved.
Obviously the Trump legal team is going to fight certification when votes are being contested.
As I have said many, many times, this will drag on until January 20th.
The EC will not be able to cast their votes because so many votes are being contested in numerous states.
Trump will keep appealing any court decisions, and come January 20th the house will elect Trump, and he is aware of this fact, which is why he did not concede, and why he will tie this issue up in the courts till January 20th.
He knows when it goes to the house, each state get's one vote for president.
Most states are republican controlled, so they would be voting for Trump.
Would be nice if Trump won in court, but he is not counting on it.
He is counting on numerous appeals to court decisions, which could bring it into late January, just in time for the election to be thrown out, and win by the republican states voting for him.
I see this quite clearly, don't understand why no one else does.
Here’s problem number one with your scenario:
They may fight certification, but they cannot prevent certification. Certification has been ongoing for a while. Georgia and Michigan are now certified, despite efforts to prevent that.
In order to prevent certification, there has to be an injunction issued by a judge. There has been no such injunction, and it is very unlikely that there will be one.
It’s a misconception that certification will be delayed until all issues have been resolved. There is a deadline, and it will be met unless a judge says otherwise.
I asked a question in post #141, and none of you dems bothered to answer it.
All you did was shy away to other subjects.
Go back and read it , and give an honest answer if you can.
My honest answer?
It was and is a ridiculous question based on a scenario that is the product of your fervid imagination and not on consensual reality. I mean sure, it's within the realm of possibility that I will stub my toe tomorrow on a pile of gold ingots, but I wouldn't waste my time asking people how I should spend the money if I do - nor on pouting if people had better things to do than indulge me.
You do you, I'm staying out of your head. No one at all is obligated to play silly games with you.
Basically, I think we all learned a few lessons on how our election system operates.
The greatest one may be:
We have been doing this for a very long time now, and have learned a lot on how to do it well. Reliably well.
So if anyone wants to challenge it, the challenge is possible to do. But if you want your challenge to overturn several state's elections, each with a definitive difference in the number of winning vs. losing votes, you had better come fully prepared with plenty of incontrovertible evidence.
Basically, I think we all learned a few lessons on how our election system operates.
The greatest one may be:
We have been doing this for a very long time now, and have learned a lot on how to do it well. Reliably well.
So if anyone wants to challenge it, the challenge is possible to do. But if you want your challenge to overturn several state's elections, each with a definitive difference in the number of winning vs. losing votes, you had better come fully prepared with plenty of incontrovertible evidence.
Anything less shall fail.
The whole experience was somewhat surreal, bordering on the ludicrous.
What it did do, is reaffirm my faith in the legal mechanisms of our great country.
A liberal Obama judge dismissed the case? What a surprise!
The judge foolishly helped Trump by accelerating the path for appeal to the Supreme Court.
Yeah the Federalist Society is just rife with liberals.
Hard to imagine in today's world, but presidents actually used to nominate judges not in their party. That all died with trump of course whose team looked for the hardest right judges out there.
Fortunately, the Supreme Court has held that rules in place before an election may not be changed after the fact. The time to bring a challenge would have been before the election.
Like so many arguments that the Trump Camp raise they have had 4 years to make changes and have done nothing. But I have to admit that if mail in ballots were removed wouldn't it be funny if President Elect Biden won by an even larger margin....
Like so many arguments that the Trump Camp raise they have had 4 years to make changes and have done nothing. But I have to admit that if mail in ballots were removed wouldn't it be funny if President Elect Biden won by an even larger margin....
Give me a break!
Biden did not get more than 60 million legal votes.
This election will be overturned in the Supreme Court. The fraud is so massive it cannot be hidden.
The DOD used the “Kracken” system to track and identify the fraud. When the evidence is presented to an objective court, Biden is finished.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
