Trump asked aides if he could pursue a wild plan to replace the Electoral College with loyalists who would ignore the vote, report says

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  john-russell  •  3 weeks ago  •  142 comments

By:   tporter@businessinsider.com (Tom Porter) 1 hr ago (MSN)

Trump asked aides if he could pursue a wild plan to replace the Electoral College with loyalists who would ignore the vote, report says
The plan exploits an obscure loophole in US democracy, and hinges on state legislatures deciding to ignore the results in their state and instead send a new group of electors to the Electoral College who would cast their votes for Trump.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



BB10dZOw.img?h=24&w=24&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&f=png Trump asked aides if he could pursue a wild plan to replace the Electoral College with loyalists who would ignore the vote, report says e151e5.gif

  • President Donald Trump has been asking aides about a plan to remain in office by subverting the Electoral College, The New York Times reported Thursday.
  • Under the scenario, GOP-controlled state legislatures would ignore the popular vote in swing states, appointing Trump loyalists to the Electoral College to secure the president a second term.
  • Business Insider reported earlier Thursday that the plan was gaining currency among some Trump supporters — despite how unlikely it is to work.
  • Experts say that the scenario, though technically possible, faces enormous legal and political obstacles.
  • The sources who spoke to the Times stressed that though Trump asked about the plan, he did not seem to entertain it seriously.
  • Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.

President Donald Trump asked top aides about a wild plan involving replacing electors in swing states with loyalists to secure himself a second term, The New York Times reported on Thursday.

The Times report came hours after Business Insider noted that the plan was gaining currency among Trump allies.

The plan exploits an obscure loophole in US democracy, and hinges on state legislatures deciding to ignore the results in their state and instead send a new group of electors to the Electoral College who would cast their votes for Trump.

Such a scenario, while technically possible, has been widely dismissed by experts as unworkable in practice and an affront to US democracy. Business Insider's post yesterday noted some of the problems with making it work.

The Times, citing sources familiar with Trump's activities, reported Thursday that the president pressed his advisors about the scenario at a meeting on Wednesday.

Since Biden's victory was projected by Business Insider on the morning of Friday 6 November, and other major news organisations on Saturday, Trump has made no public statements.

Instead he spent time playing golf, watching cable news, and tweeting accusations of electoral fraud, many of which have been labelled misleading by the social media platform.

According to reports, top advisors have admitted privately that Trump's chances of winning a series of lawsuits challenging vote counts in swing states have little realistic prospect of success.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Read the original article on Business InsiderContinue ReadingShow full articles without "Continue Reading" button for {0} hours. Microsoft may earn an Affiliate Commission if you purchase something through recommended links in this article.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
JohnRussell
1  seeder  JohnRussell    3 weeks ago

Will Trump supporters on Newstalkers tell us whether or not they support Trump getting a second term by subverting the electoral college ? 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.1  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @1    3 weeks ago

No.....but we will attempt to make Biden's job as difficult as possible

The resistant is just getting started.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
1.1.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1    3 weeks ago
"No.....but we will attempt to make Biden's job as difficult as possible The resistant is just getting started."

What a great impression that makes on the rest of the world.  Be proud, so very proud of the demolition of democracy.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
1.1.2  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1    3 weeks ago
The resistant is just getting started.

Whatever you say, m'dear.  Now have yourself a lovely day.

 
 
 
devangelical
1.1.3  devangelical  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @1.1.2    3 weeks ago

whatever gets those old birthers into the box the quickest. most have voted in their last general election anyway.

 
 
 
Ronin2
1.1.4  Ronin2  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @1.1.1    3 weeks ago

Right, as if the last 5 years of left wing "Not my president" & "Remove at all costs" dumbfuckery didn't make a wreck the US image.

Fuck the rest of the world. They will have Biden giving them all blow jobs soon enough. The tail will go back to wagging the US dog again.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.1.5  Bob Nelson  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1    3 weeks ago
but we will attempt to make Biden's job as difficult as possible

Does the content of Biden's program matter? Or will you oppose everything? 

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
1.1.6  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.1.5    3 weeks ago

Does the content of Biden's program matter? Or will you oppose everything? 

Of course not...... They are more than happy to vote against their own best interests...... 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.1.7  Bob Nelson  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @1.1.6    3 weeks ago

I was hoping for a Reply from Greg. 

You're probably right, considering that most of Trump's policies are harmful to Trumpists... but they adore him anyway. But I'm more than willing to hear a different argument from Greg. 

 
 
 
bbl-1
1.1.8  bbl-1  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1    3 weeks ago

It is possible that a new DOJ interested in following the money, public and private, may make Biden's job much easier than you could ever imagine.  Dirty money ends up biting arse.

 
 
 
dennis smith
1.1.9  dennis smith  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @1.1.1    3 weeks ago

That is exactly what the Dems did to Trump for 4 years. Are you proud of that or ?

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
1.1.10  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  dennis smith @1.1.9    3 weeks ago
"Are you proud of that or ?"

I'll choose the "?" since I'm not an American.

 
 
 
dennis smith
1.1.11  dennis smith  replied to  devangelical @1.1.3    3 weeks ago

Whatever gets those who oppose older people are the ones who need to get in the "box" as quickly as possible.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
1.1.12  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Ronin2 @1.1.4    2 weeks ago

Okay. Enjoy it.

b083fe955fbe193af43114.jpg

 
 
 
arkpdx
1.1.13  arkpdx  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.1.5    2 weeks ago
Does the content of Biden's program matter? Or will you oppose everything?

That's asking the same question and seeing what he claims are the first EOs he is going to make, his program is worth resisting. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.1.14  Bob Nelson  replied to  arkpdx @1.1.13    2 weeks ago

That's what I supposed. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.1.15  MrFrost  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1    2 weeks ago
No.....but we will attempt to make Biden's job as difficult as possible

Let me guess, you call yourself a patriot too? 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1    3 weeks ago
by subverting the electoral colle

Gee, I wonder where he could get that idea?

electoral-college-members-to-switch-their-trump-ballots-elect-clinton

How soon you have forgotten!

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.2.1  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2    2 weeks ago

Subverting the electoral college is wrong no matter who does it.   Do you agree?

 
 
 
Thomas
1.2.2  Thomas  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.1    2 weeks ago

Getting rid of the Electoral College altogether by means of a constitutional amendment would be better yet, but that cannot affect the outcome of this election. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.2.3  Bob Nelson  replied to  Thomas @1.2.2    2 weeks ago

The system was created in a very different society, over two centuries ago. 

So many flaws have developed and accumulated. The EC is a flaw... principally because the Senate is a flaw. And so on....

With one of the major parties working diligently to destroy democracy - both sides do not do it - in America, it's hard to imagine the kind of "common purpose" we'd need to clean up the mess. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.2.4  TᵢG  replied to  Thomas @1.2.2    2 weeks ago

That is unlikely.   But we could make improvements.   One improvement would be to simply have all 50 states use proportional votes (and replace human electors with tallies).   

That will likely never happen either because the states are not likely to agree on anything ever, but it would be an easy improvement.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.2.5  TᵢG  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.2.3    2 weeks ago

Ours is a federated system.   If you think a federated system is a flaw then I understand your point.   I do not expect the USA to go pure national in the foreseeable future.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.2.6  Bob Nelson  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.5    2 weeks ago

Finding a better apportionment for the Senate would not be the end of our federal system, which is perhaps better illustrated in the importance of states' legal systems than in their representation in the Senate.

When the Constitution was written, the population ratio between biggest state and smallest was 7:1. Now it's 30:1... and it's killing the federation. We could find a scale that would protect small states... reasonably. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.2.7  TᵢG  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.2.6    2 weeks ago
Finding a better apportionment for the Senate would not be the end of our federal system,  ...

Well we have already had that discussion.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.2.8  Bob Nelson  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.7    2 weeks ago
Well we have already had that discussion.

Really? 

I don't remember it. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.2.9  TᵢG  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.2.8    2 weeks ago

In my electoral college article.  Remember when you were proposing increasing the number of congressional representatives by a factor of 10, etc.?

 
 
 
Kavika
1.2.10  Kavika   replied to  TᵢG @1.2.4    2 weeks ago

I believe that Alaska just passed a proposition to move to proportional vote system

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.2.11  Bob Nelson  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.9    2 weeks ago

Increasing the number of Representatives is a different subject. 

Did we conclude something about the Senate? My memory can be pretty flaky. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.2.12  TᵢG  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.2.11    2 weeks ago

Here is one of your comments:

Bob @ 10.1.5 ☞ The same problem exists, in spades, with the Senate. It is simply not reasonable for Wyoming and California to have the same number of Senators. And yet the need to "protect" the small states is real.  Perhaps there should be a logarithmic scale, with 1 Senator for Wyoming and 10 for California? Wyoming would still be over-represented, but not so egregiously.
 
 
 
Thomas
1.2.13  Thomas  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.4    2 weeks ago

TiG,

Well, I see what is going on as I hope a supermajority of the people in the individual states do. I really think that a Constitutional amendment is the way to go because it will obviate any other cult leaders who lose the popular vote from carrying on in such a morally reprehensible fashion when it becomes clear that they have lost the popular vote. The people rule. Not parties. Not Individual politicians. That is the heart of the problem right now because the parties think they are the rulers. that is not the way the USA is supposed to work.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.2.14  TᵢG  replied to  Thomas @1.2.13    2 weeks ago

A constitutional amendment is certainly the best way to go.   I just wish it was possible to achieve that given today's environment.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.2.15  Bob Nelson  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.12    2 weeks ago

Oh... I don't remember that at all. But I stand by it!

      jrSmiley_19_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.2.16  TᵢG  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.2.15    2 weeks ago

I would expect that this is still your opinion.   I am not suggesting your opinion is without merit.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.2.17  Bob Nelson  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.16    2 weeks ago

Same question... same dataset... same conclusion.  jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Ronin2
2  Ronin2    3 weeks ago

More bullshit by the media. Once again "sources". Meaning they have jack shit of nothing; and are pulling their old bullshit narrative of "repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth".

Why not put a name to these "sources" that can back up what they are reporting? Of course that would a real source, and not something in the media's TDS driven minds.

 
 
 
Dragon
2.1  Dragon  replied to  Ronin2 @2    3 weeks ago

Trump and his followers love unnamed sources when they support him. The "repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth" is taken from the Trump/GOP playbook, just like they are trying, and failing, to do with constant rants of voter fraud. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
2.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  Ronin2 @2    3 weeks ago

This really bugs the crap out of you, doesn't it? Because if true, it shows your boy in a very poor light. Actually, the light becomes very bright and shows the low depths of his ethics, morals, character, and integrity.

Maybe, just maybe, some of you will finally see this "man" for what he really is

 
 
 
Ronin2
2.2.1  Ronin2  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.2    3 weeks ago

"My boy"?

Condescending, and with racist overtones no less.

You think I am pro Trump? I can't stand the asshole. I didn't vote for him or Hillary the first time around. I campaigned for, and voted for Gary Johnson. What did I get for my efforts? With two of the most vile human beings running under the Establishment banners, Johnson couldn't even garner 10% of the vote to get federal funding for the next federal elections.

What is more is the left's reaction. Seems my voting for Johnson was a slap in their faces. I, and those that voted 3rd party, enabled Trump to win. Cost me a few Democratic friends. So I decided this time around I wasn't going third party.

I voted straight Republican ticket for the first time ever. The Democrats have proven themselves to be far worse than Republicans at every level. The lot of them are not fit to be dog catchers. "Russia, Russia, Russia". "Collusion, Collusion, Collusion", 'Ukraine, Ukraine, Ukraine", and "Impeachment, Impeachment, Impeachment". It started even before Trump took office- and still echoes throughout the TDS driven left.  It wasn't a vote for Trump, it was a vote against Democrats.

Your corrupt, hair sniffing, rapist, pedophile beat the one in office. Democrats should be happy- instead it has just ratcheted up the attacks. I will never argue Trump isn't a complete asshole; but the Democrats have outstripped him in every regard to become the biggest assholes on the planet.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
2.2.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  Ronin2 @2.2.1    3 weeks ago
Condescending, and with racist overtones no less.

Condescending? Yes. Racist? No. trmp is no man and I'm beginning to believe he doesn't even earn the title of boy. That infers that he would at least have testicles.

I voted straight Republican ticket for the first time ever.

And at the beginning of your screed you claim, "can't stand the asshole" "didn't vote for him".

That's why I call him your "boy". You have defended nearly all of his actions for the last 4 years. For someone that I used to believe was a rational, critically thinking, conservative, you've disappointed me.

As for the rest of your comment...I didn't bother

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2.3  TᵢG  replied to  Ronin2 @2.2.1    3 weeks ago
Your corrupt, hair sniffing, rapist, pedophile beat the one in office.

One can easily argue that any politician is corrupt so I will not challenge that adjective.

Hair-sniffing seems like a feeble jab.   Big deal.

However ...

  • Rapist is a serious allegation which is unfounded.  
  • Pedophile is a serious allegation which is unfounded.

Why make these extreme emotive allegations when Biden has never been found guilty of either?

As I have noted when similar allegations were made of Trump, it is counterproductive to put forth wild allegations (or to focus on irrelevant nits).   Why do it?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2.2.4  Bob Nelson  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.3    3 weeks ago
Why do it?

Rabies? 

 
 
 
dennis smith
2.2.5  dennis smith  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.2.2    3 weeks ago

Calling someone, someone else's boy is indeed racist. You have displayed yourself to the world as a racist no matter how you try to walk back your words..

 
 
 
dennis smith
2.2.6  dennis smith  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.2.2    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
JBB
2.2.7  JBB  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.2.4    3 weeks ago

Hydrophobia...

 
 
 
Kathleen
2.2.8  Kathleen  replied to  Ronin2 @2.2.1    3 weeks ago

Trump as a person, absolutely not, but what I have seen throughout the last four years has been more vicious then Trumps personally. The witch hunt has been just terrible. 

They talk about how terrible the Trump supporters are, but they can’t see how vicious they were during all that time. 

I saw it.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2.2.9  Bob Nelson  replied to  Kathleen @2.2.8    3 weeks ago
The witch hunt has been just terrible.

I do not understand. Trump's misdeeds, both legal but immoral, and downright illegal, have been pretty well documented.

He escaped impeachment because the Republican Party covered his illegal actions.

Would you now make him a martyr?

Seriously?

Tell it to the quarter-million dead!

 
 
 
Kathleen
2.2.11  Kathleen  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.2.9    3 weeks ago

Of course you don’t understand, I didn’t expect you to. No martyr, just observation for the last four years. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
3  Just Jim NC TttH    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

Trump, for all intents and purposes has lost!

[deleted]

And if you think 2024 is nuts, ask Grover Cleveland.........

 
 
 
Ozzwald
3.1  Ozzwald  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3    3 weeks ago
Jesus H Christ JR. Trump, for all intents and purposes has lost!

It would be nice if he'd acknowledge that fact.

Are we going to have to read Trump hit pieces for the NEXT four years too?

That depends on Trump.

It's beyond ridiculous to plaster the front page with never Trump crap at this stage of the game.

Until he acknowledges it, it is not crap.

He isn't going to be your President for more than two more months.

I know that, you know that, Trump refuses to know that.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
3.1.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1    3 weeks ago

Just why in the hell does acknowledging it matter? The writing is on the wall. He knows it. Would YOU go down without a fight knowing what hell has happened over the last four years of defending yourself against all kinds of false accusations and the media plastering everything you did, short of taking a dump, every day because they didn't like you? I would hope you would have more fight in you than that...................

And to answer JR's original question, no I would not support a second term under those circumstances. It, again, is ridiculous to assume he could even get CLOSE to being able to do that. You call the man all kind of names but yet want to keep him alive here at TNT. Let it go and support your new POTUS without having to beat on Trump. Although I know it's gotta be hard knowing that all that is on the table so far is putting the country in reverse and rolling back what has been done over the last four years. That is easy shit.

 
 
 
Dragon
3.1.2  Dragon  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.1.1    3 weeks ago

Hillary went down without a fight even though GOP has been persecuting her for years, and spewed numerous lies about her during the campaign, and she lost to Trump with even smaller margins than Trump has lost by. 

If Trump would just shut his mouth and acknowledge the loss, articles about him might, just might simmer down, but he constantly rants about voter fraud and other imagined slights against him. His firing of officials just because they disagree with him also causes more news negative to him. 

Finally is does matter that the current president has not acknowledge the incoming president, especially when thousands of his followers continue to rant and wail about voter fraud and how Biden is not the president-elect. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
3.1.3  Ozzwald  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.1.1    3 weeks ago
Just why in the hell does acknowledging it matter?

Because he is POTUS and refusing to acknowledge his loss is directly impacting this country. 

  • His hot headed supporters are still causing trouble. 
  • His lawyers are still opening frivolous lawsuits. 
  • He is still pouting and not addressing any emergent issues
  • He is blocking the president-elect from a smooth transition of power.

There's more if you need it.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
3.1.4  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.3    3 weeks ago
his loss is directly impacting this country. 

Just how so?

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
3.1.5  Trout Giggles  replied to  Dragon @3.1.2    3 weeks ago

He's keeping himself alive here on NT

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
3.1.6  Right Down the Center  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.1.1    3 weeks ago

I agree I would not support a term under those circumstances.  What I find amusing is some democrats were trying something similar(faithless electors" when Trump won in 2016.  I don't seem to recall the liberal outrage then.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
3.1.7  Ozzwald  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.1.4    3 weeks ago

Just how so?

Did you just ignore over half of my reply???

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
3.1.8  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.7    3 weeks ago

It's bullshit and got the attention it deserved. Now HOW is that affecting the whole country. And that smooth transition crap is just that. Mr. Biden is moving ahead with his plans and I am sure, when the smoke clears, it will be just fine. Did you ever work in a company where the CEO or CFO or other high up got to transition into his/her new position and the person they were replacing got to hang around to show them the ropes after getting fired? I wager hell no. LOL.

So, what's to transition? Mr. Biden got first hand knowledge of "transitioning" in 2008 and knows what has to be done. Granted it was, by all accounts, smooth but what the hell are you expecting? That he gets to hang in the White House and have a sleep over until inauguration? He is doing what he can now to get ready. And it matters NOT what Trump does or doesn't do or say.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.1.9  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.1.8    3 weeks ago

Withholding the security intel actually can hurt this country. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
3.1.10  Ozzwald  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.1.8    3 weeks ago
It's bullshit and got the attention it deserved. Now HOW is that affecting the whole country.

I have already given 4 examples.  Why are you unable to read them?

 
 
 
bbl-1
3.1.11  bbl-1  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.1.9    3 weeks ago

Possible the 'security INTEL' on a selective basis has been withheld from the current president ever since his stunt at Helsinki.

 
 
 
Kathleen
3.1.12  Kathleen  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.1.1    3 weeks ago

I think it’s because they will have nothing to bitch about. Once Trump is gone, their fun bashing him is gone.. jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

Now it’s time to look for someone else to gang up on.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
3.1.13  Bob Nelson  replied to  Kathleen @3.1.12    3 weeks ago

That's kinda sorta... ... childish...

 
 
 
Kathleen
3.1.14  Kathleen  replied to  Bob Nelson @3.1.13    3 weeks ago

That’s kinda.. sorta... true....

 
 
 
bugsy
3.1.15  bugsy  replied to  Dragon @3.1.2    3 weeks ago
Hillary went down without a fight

Wrong...her fight was the fake Russian dozier she paid for to try and invalidate Trump's presidency. She failed and, unfortunately for you and your friends, you can still not call her president Hillary.

 
 
 
dennis smith
3.1.16  dennis smith  replied to  Bob Nelson @3.1.13    3 weeks ago

Yep just like the Dems ganged up on Trump

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
3.1.17  Bob Nelson  replied to  dennis smith @3.1.16    3 weeks ago

If you want to do it, it must be a decent and honorable thing to do. If it were not, you wouldn't want to do it. 

If it is decent and honorable now, it must have been decent and honorable then.

Right? 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.2  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3    3 weeks ago

Comment on the article, not the seeder. Next one will be flagged as off topic. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
3.2.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2    3 weeks ago

It is on the [article...................deleted]

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
3.3  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3    3 weeks ago
Are we going to have to read Trump hit pieces for the NEXT four years too?

As soon as he removes his X/L carcass out of the WH, we will focus on returning this nation to a once again respected world power.

And by the way, what the hell have you been posting for 4 freaking years...love letters to Dems, liberals and Hillary Clinton?

 
 
 
evilgenius
3.4  evilgenius  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3    3 weeks ago
Are we going to have to read Trump hit pieces for the NEXT four years too?

Didn't someone just seed an article on Hillary this week? We've had to spend 4 years on that crap too. I wasn't fond of her when she was in office, now she's irrelevant and the right still brings her up every other day.

 
 
 
JBB
3.5  JBB  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3    3 weeks ago

You certainly are not handling Trump loss very well.

By the time we have an accounting of the Trump administration he will not be able to get himself elected Runner Up to the Queen of Cell Block D...

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
3.5.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JBB @3.5    3 weeks ago
You certainly are not handling Trump loss very well.

au contraire. I know he lost. I'm over it. Best for those on the "winning" side for them to get over it and move on. He is, other than having two months left, history now. How about some good things that the Biden administration is going to do? Instead of still pounding on the outgoing ..............

 
 
 
cjcold
3.5.2  cjcold  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.5.1    3 weeks ago

What I am worried about is how the wounded jackel in the bush will choose to attack the now, president elect

Trump is the epitome of a  school yard bully with no conscience onboard.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
3.6  Trout Giggles  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3    3 weeks ago

Kinda like we saw in 2016 with all the hit pieces on Clinton.

Me thinks you need to dial back the anger a tad bit

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
3.6.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.6    3 weeks ago

Clinton wasn't elected now was she. What hit pieces after the election, other than her sticking her nose in after the fact, hit pieces did you see? And I am not angry. Just fed up with sore winners.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
3.6.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.6.1    3 weeks ago

Wow...and you got on my case yesterday for having a faulty memory. I will not go back thru 4 years of articles looking for a Hillary hit piece.

And, no, she was not elected, but neither was your boy this time around. 

As far as being fed up with sore winners? I see a lot of projection in that statement.

 
 
 
Kavika
3.6.3  Kavika   replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.6.1    3 weeks ago

You might want to wake up to the fact that Bunker Boy is keeping this alive. His refusal to concede (I don't give a fuck if he does or doesn't) his childish temper tantrums and tweets. His endless lawsuits trying to overturn an election (he has that right and he will lose every one of them). His constant accusations of voter fraud and his mindless tweets and his outright lies are keeping him in the headlines. 

Like everything else he's done, he has brought this election disaster on himself. 

Sore winners, you say, take a look at Bunker Boy if you want to see sore. Trump a real sore loser.

809.png

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
3.6.4  Trout Giggles  replied to  Kavika @3.6.3    3 weeks ago
I voted straight Republican ticket for the first time ever.

When I was a kid, we wouldn't play with sore losers

 
 
 
evilgenius
3.6.5  evilgenius  replied to  Kavika @3.6.3    3 weeks ago
...and he will lose every one of them...

Oh they actually won one yesterday in Pennsylvania where they tossed a couple of hundred mail in ballots with missing post marks. It doesn't amount to anything but they did win a case.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
3.6.6  Trout Giggles  replied to  evilgenius @3.6.5    3 weeks ago

But those weren't even counted, correct, and won't be counted at all?

A minor win....or as my dear husband says when he beats me at Trivial Pursuit...a moral victory

 
 
 
evilgenius
3.6.7  evilgenius  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.6.6    3 weeks ago
But those weren't even counted, correct, and won't be counted at all?

I believe the article said they were counted "fixed" ballots and the court tossed them out. It was only a small number so the needle doesn't really move any.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
3.6.8  Trout Giggles  replied to  evilgenius @3.6.7    3 weeks ago

thank-you

 
 
 
cjcold
3.6.9  cjcold  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.6    3 weeks ago

The far right wing lives on hate of the "other"

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
3.7  Bob Nelson  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3    3 weeks ago

Trump has lost the election. That doesn't mean that Trumpism is finished.

I personally feel a powerful need to insist, to repeat, that all small-d democrats must remain mobilized.

The enemies of democracy will keep trying. 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
4  Buzz of the Orient    3 weeks ago

I thought there was a SCOTUS decision that the standard process of electing the electors could not be altered.  

 
 
 
evilgenius
4.1  evilgenius  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @4    3 weeks ago

The SCOTUS case was on the electors changing their votes from what they were appointed for. This article discusses the use of the state legislators appointing their own electors. Different discussion altogether. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
4.2  Bob Nelson  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @4    3 weeks ago

The Constitution says

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.
 
 
 
Tacos!
4.3  Tacos!  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @4    3 weeks ago

The Constitution allows states to choose electors. It doesn't say how they have to do that. 

I believe the case you're thinking of was about whether or not states can require electors to vote for the candidate the state wants - and they can.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
4.3.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Tacos! @4.3    3 weeks ago

If the electors are permitted to cast their votes contrary to the decision arrived at by the majority of the voters of the State they represent, then what I see is the disenfranchisement of voters' rights and a bastardization of the democracy that America is so proud of that they encourage it among the citizens in other nations, interfering with the domestic affairs of those nations. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.3.2  Texan1211  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @4.3.1    3 weeks ago
If the electors are permitted to cast their votes contrary to the decision arrived at by the majority of the voters of the State they represent, then what I see is the disenfranchisement of voters' rights

And yet, many Democrats are supportive of disenfranchising their own states voters by demanding that the electors vote for whoever won the popular vote in the country, their own voters' wishes be damned.

As of July 2020, it has been enacted into law in 16 jurisdictions possessing 196 electoral votes, including 4 small states (DE, HI, RI, VT), 8 medium-sized states (CO, CT, MD, MA, NJ, NM, OR, WA), 3 big states (CA, IL, NY), and the District of Columbia.  

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
4.3.3  Bob Nelson  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @4.3.1    3 weeks ago

Yes. That would be unthinkable. 

That's probably why the Fathers didn't bother to write it. 

Sadly, our President has made a habit of doing the unthinkable. 

 
 
 
JBB
5  JBB    3 weeks ago

We've never had demonstrations like there would be.

 
 
 
Tacos!
6  Tacos!    3 weeks ago
The sources who spoke to the Times stressed that though Trump asked about the plan, he did not seem to entertain it seriously.

Then what are we talking about it for? Just so someone can publish a clickbait headline? Or it is to make the extreme partisans on the left even more perpetually outraged than they already are?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
6.1  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Tacos! @6    3 weeks ago

The fact that he even entertained the idea of a plan goes to his character. That is the point, and that is why so many within his own party have parted ways with him. Never before in history has this even been discussed, and if it came from the Democrats, you would be screaming communism. You don't ask if you are not interested. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.1.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @6.1    3 weeks ago
You don't ask if you are not interested. 

Of course.    If his aides had responded with "thats a great idea chief", Trump would have said "let's go. let's do it".  Of course he wanted to do it. The "he wasnt serious" part comes afterward.  

 
 
 
Tacos!
6.1.2  Tacos!  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @6.1    3 weeks ago
The fact that he even entertained the idea of a plan goes to his character.

So what does it say about the character of people who wanted faithless electors to vote for Clinton in 2016?

That is the point, and that is why so many within his own party have parted ways with him.

Where are the Democrats condemning the talk or voting in 2016? Did they part ways with anyone?

Never before in history has this even been discussed

Seriously? You really think there has never been talk of electors voting however they wanted? There were 10 faithless electors in 2016. Legions of Clinton supporters were begging for more. There have been several of them through our history .

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
6.1.3  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Tacos! @6.1.2    3 weeks ago
So what does it say about the character of people who wanted faithless electors to vote for Clinton in 2016?

This is one heck of a detour to the discussion, but I was never for that, and anyone who was, should be ashamed of themselves. But you nicely avoided the fact that the leader of the free world, even asked that question. 

Where are the Democrats condemning the talk or voting in 2016? Did they part ways with anyone?

Again, we are not talking about the current incumbent. The equivalency is who in the Republican party is talking out against this? 

Seriously? You really think there has never been talk of electors voting however they wanted? There were 10 faithless electors in 2016. Legions of Clinton supporters were begging for more. There have been several of them through our history .

And they were wrong. But NEVER has the president talk about it. There is a big difference.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.1.4  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @6.1.3    3 weeks ago

Perrie some people will still be making excuses for Trump when they shuffle off this mortal coil. It is totally inexplicable, but no longer a surprise or shock. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
6.1.5  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.4    3 weeks ago

I have seen Tacos be very reasonable. I am a cup half full kind of gal. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
6.1.6  Tacos!  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @6.1.3    3 weeks ago
But you nicely avoided the fact that the leader of the free world, even asked that question.

Ok, this is also a derail, but I consider "leader of the free world" to be arrogant American hyperbole. I know you didn't invent it, but it's overused. He is not that. He is an elected official for the United States. He is the head of only one of three coequal branches of government.

He is also free to spitball ideas. I don't care what he brainstorms. I care what he actually does.

Furthermore, nothing he is suggesting is illegal, much less immoral.

I was never for that

Why not? One of the intended purposes of the Electoral system was that people wiser than yer average joe would be picking the president. Several elections have been brokered through the electoral process.

In 2016, the Electoral College probably should have voted for Clinton, or even better: some third, more moderate person than the two contenders. We probably all would be happier now.

The equivalency is who in the Republican party is talking out against this? 

I have no idea. Didn't this rumor just break today? Is it even substantiated? If not, why should anyone comment on it at all? In 2016, that talk went on for weeks, out in the open, and was supported widely in the media.

But NEVER has the president talk about it.

Actually, I doubt that's true, but how would we know? And anyway, again, there is no reason he shouldn't talk about it. "Speech police" is not a good look, ya know?

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
6.1.7  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @6.1.5    3 weeks ago
I am a cup half full kind of gal. 

what size cups

do u have../?

 
 
 
Tacos!
6.1.8  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.4    3 weeks ago

You probably assume I support the idea of the Electoral College voting for Trump. In this case, I don't think I do, but that is not my main reaction to the story.

What I see here is what I have been seeing for four years: contrived outrage over something that is not really outrageous. First, we don't even know the story is true. But even if it is, all presidents and all candidates throw around all sorts of ideas with their advisors. It's called brainstorming or spitballing. It doesn't mean anything. It's how creativity gets warmed up.

The left in this country has a disturbing need to control the speech and thoughts of others, particularly when it might upset their political agenda. Creative thought scares the shit of them, so they must crush it. I see that and I am reminded of oppressive, totalitarian regimes that jail, exile, or execute political heretics. That is a far more disturbing impulse to me than Trump trying to brainstorm perfectly legal pathways to reelection.

 
 
 
Tacos!
6.1.9  Tacos!  replied to  igknorantzrulz @6.1.7    3 weeks ago

Asking for a friend?

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
6.1.10  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Tacos! @6.1.6    3 weeks ago
"Speech police" is not a good look, ya know?

unless you N joy uniforms, cause i no i'll never rock a boat i can roll the joint without the boat, but, my two nonsense agrees wit Perrie, as sum times you can be so logical, others, what planet do you originate frum , but, since i'm on occassion, non conformin to N E uniformity, cause i'm deformed, and can't D formin too much with norm,n i don't think i care   too change

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
6.1.11  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Tacos! @6.1.9    3 weeks ago
Asking for a friend?

no, as i don't want or need any friends, but, if your cup is say a D-formed and half full, y  not pour into a cup half d-formed, and around this a boob will be fully endowed and form fitting, as i cross my heart, hope to dye my hair, and just wanted to keep you abreast, but you'll probably accuse me of milkin tit, and then i'll have to X plane my intolerance that doesn't lack toes

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.1.12  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @6.1.8    3 weeks ago
What I see here is what I have been seeing for four years: contrived outrage over something that is not really outrageous. First, we don't even know the story is true. But even if it is, all presidents and all candidates throw around all sorts of ideas with their advisors. It's called brainstorming or spitballing. It doesn't mean anything. It's how creativity gets warmed up.

What nonsense. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
6.1.13  Drakkonis  replied to  Tacos! @6.1.8    3 weeks ago
The left in this country has a disturbing need to control the speech and thoughts of others, particularly when it might upset their political agenda. Creative thought scares the shit of them, so they must crush it.

I don't think that's quite it. I agree with the need to control thought and speech in others, but I don't think creative thinking bothers them. What bothers them is the idea of objectivity. They hate it. What they want is something like 1984, where you're supposed to believe preventing illegal aliens from coming into the country is racist but murdering children in the womb is not really murder. A society where a five year old has the legal right to decide what sex it is. Where sex workers have rights while at the same time screaming about the patriarchy.  Where hate speech is defined as whatever they say it is. They want a society that is completely divorced from reality and will believe whatever they're told to believe, and drag down anyone who thinks objectively. For goodness sakes, ask just about anyone on the left and they will tell you they hold the impossible position that morality is relative while burning down your business because they are morally justified in doing so. 

So, no, I can't agree that creative thought scares them. They seem to support just about every idea that denies reality. 

 
 
 
cjcold
6.1.14  cjcold  replied to  igknorantzrulz @6.1.7    3 weeks ago

Gal Gadot's measurements are 34-24-34 with a B cup. and a perfect face.

 
 
 
cjcold
6.1.15  cjcold  replied to  cjcold @6.1.14    3 weeks ago

Sometimes I think about other things than AGW and politics.

 
 
 
Tacos!
6.1.16  Tacos!  replied to  Drakkonis @6.1.13    3 weeks ago
they hold the impossible position that morality is relative while burning down your business because they are morally justified in doing so. 

That is a smart observation.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
6.1.17  Bob Nelson  replied to  Tacos! @6.1.16    3 weeks ago
That is a smart observation.

Alternatively, that is pure fantasy. 

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
7  The Magic Eight Ball    3 weeks ago
Trump Asked Aides If He Could Pursue A Wild Plan To Replace The Electoral College With Loyalists Who Would Ignore The Vote, Report Says

the left is full of shit beyond over and above any previous estimate. report says.

in other words,

y'all are a bunch of fukin morons. report says.

 
 
 
bbl-1
8  bbl-1    3 weeks ago

Find it hard to believe a man ( DJT ) who cheated on every one of his wives and mistresses would even entertain the thought of finding a way to cheat with the nation's electoral system.

s/

 
 
 
cjcold
9  cjcold    3 weeks ago

Many times I think about environmental aspects. I'm only thinking of sex  with pretty  girls now .

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
10  Paula Bartholomew    3 weeks ago

This is why the 25th should be activated  If he is seriously considering this blatant attempt to rig the election, then his powers need to be seriously curtailed.

 
 
 
dennis smith
10.1  dennis smith  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @10    3 weeks ago

Obama asked if there was a way he could run for a 3rd term. It was reported by CNN so it must have been true.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
10.1.1  Bob Nelson  replied to  dennis smith @10.1    3 weeks ago

That sounds like bullshit. But I'm willing to accept almost anything these days. All you have to do is supply a link. 

Otherwise... you're just makin' shit up. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
10.1.2  TᵢG  replied to  Bob Nelson @10.1.1    2 weeks ago

Yeah, a former constitutional law teacher does not need to inquire about a third term.  

 
 
 
Tacos!
10.1.3  Tacos!  replied to  dennis smith @10.1    2 weeks ago

I think all he said was that he thought he could have won a third term (assuming that was an option, and knowing it was not).

 
 
 
dennis smith
11  dennis smith    2 weeks ago

CNN reported this in the 7th year of his Presidency, prior to the next election year campaigns starting.  He was not unique in this, other Presidents have been power hungry with a yearning to stay in office. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
11.1  Bob Nelson  replied to  dennis smith @11    2 weeks ago

I hope this is not intended to be an answer to my 10.1.1. 

You're still without a link, so I just seems like you're makin' even more shit up. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
11.2  Split Personality  replied to  dennis smith @11    2 weeks ago
It’s true that New York Rep. Jose Serrano, a Democrat, introduced a bill (H.J.RES.5 ) on Jan. 6, when Congress opened, proposing the repeal of the 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which limits presidents to two terms. Repealing that amendment would require ratification by three-fourths of the states.

The bill was referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties and is sitting there now. It has no cosponsors.

Serrano introduced or cosponsored the same proposal in 1997 and 1999 , when Democrat Bill Clinton was president, and again in 2001 just days before Republican George Bush was sworn in for his first term. He also introduced it in 2003 , 2005 and 2007 , all before Barack Obama even announced he was running for president.

All of these bills died in committee without ever coming to a vote. None of Serrano’s bills attracted any cosponsors, except for the 1997 and 1999 versions, each of which was cosponsored by Rep. Chris Shays of Connecticut, a Republican.

Obama joked about being able to win a third term if eligible, but as a Constitutional lawyer, he knew better.  No  doubt he was aware of the zero support for Serrano's Folly.

He was not unique in this, other Presidents have been power hungry with a yearning to stay in office. 

But not Bush or Obama.  Now Mr trump, on the other hand seems to think that He is FDR and we all owe him a second term

and maybe more, He is not going to go away quietly.

 
 
 
dennis smith
12  dennis smith    2 weeks ago

I do not know how to post a link so I typed on Google. Did Obama inquire about a 3rd term as POTUS?

There are many responding news articles. Some are nonsense and some have some truth to them. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
12.1  Bob Nelson  replied to  dennis smith @12    2 weeks ago

C'mon, dennis! 

Obama was a Constitutional lawyer. 

 
 
 
dennis smith
12.1.1  dennis smith  replied to  Bob Nelson @12.1    2 weeks ago

Are you trying to mimic Biden with your "C,Mon Dennis" or as Biden says over and over "C'Mon, Man"?

Being a constitutional lawyer does not have anything to do with the news articles.

 
 
 
TᵢG
12.1.2  TᵢG  replied to  dennis smith @12.1.1    2 weeks ago
Being a constitutional lawyer does not have anything to do with the news articles.

It has a lot to do with knowing that a PotUS is term limited by the 22ndamendment of the CotUS and thus it makes zero sense that Obama would inquire about a third term.

Obama was quite well aware of the 22nd amendment.

 
 
 
Split Personality
12.1.3  Split Personality  replied to  TᵢG @12.1.2    2 weeks ago

see my 11.2

 
 
 
TᵢG
12.1.4  TᵢG  replied to  Split Personality @12.1.3    2 weeks ago

Yup, we are saying the same thing.   Of course Obama knew that a third time is not possible.

 
 
 
dennis smith
12.1.5  dennis smith  replied to  TᵢG @12.1.2    2 weeks ago

It does not take a constitutional scholar to know that a 3rd term is not available,  that is what 12.1 comment said and nothing else. 

And yes some of the articles I referenced show otherwise regarding Obama.

 
 
 
TᵢG
12.1.6  TᵢG  replied to  dennis smith @12.1.5    2 weeks ago

Correct, it is common knowledge.  So clearly Obama knew because he has far more that the sufficient knowledge on this question.

You get this, right?    You understand that it is silly to think Obama would inquire about a third term?

So what is the problem?

 
 
 
dennis smith
12.1.7  dennis smith  replied to  TᵢG @12.1.6    2 weeks ago

Read the articles

 
 
 
TᵢG
12.1.8  TᵢG  replied to  dennis smith @12.1.7    2 weeks ago

Surely that lame dodge will convince everyone that you have a point that you can defend.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
12.1.9  Bob Nelson  replied to  TᵢG @12.1.8    2 weeks ago

Gee... 

I'm convinced! 

... that dennis is makin' shit up again... 

 
 
 
dennis smith
12.1.10  dennis smith  replied to  TᵢG @12.1.8    2 weeks ago

It is obvious you did not read the articles 

 
 
 
dennis smith
12.1.11  dennis smith  replied to  Bob Nelson @12.1.9    2 weeks ago

I am convinced you did not read the articles.

BTW your picture fits you very well.

 
 
 
TᵢG
12.1.12  TᵢG  replied to  dennis smith @12.1.10    2 weeks ago

Is this the best you can do?   Can you not formulate an actual rebuttal or at least put forth a reason for why you do not think I read the article?

Typically vague responses like you are providing illustrate an inability of the comment author to make a cogent statement.   In these cases, the author often  puts forth crap that takes no stand and thus avoids any challenge.

Take a stand or move on.   If you have a specific allegation then make it and provide your supporting reason.

 
 
 
dennis smith
12.1.13  dennis smith  replied to  TᵢG @12.1.12    2 weeks ago

Read the articles and you will realize you are not addressing what they say. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
12.1.14  TᵢG  replied to  dennis smith @12.1.13    2 weeks ago

Clearly you have nothing other than a lame 'read the article' mantra.   Pathetic.

 
 
 
Split Personality
13  Split Personality    2 weeks ago

One week later and this seed is fast approaching reality.

Can Trump convince Michigan to designate new electors tomorrow?

We shall see.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
13.1  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Split Personality @13    2 weeks ago
Can Trump convince Michigan to designate new electors tomorrow?
Can Trump convince Michigan to designate new electors tomorrow?

F there is one thing Trumpp and GOP have taught US, it is we need to put some restrictions on Presidents Future, after experiencing won who lost, as he has so skirted, disregarded, and/or down right BROKE so many FCKN LAWS, While constantly flappin nonstop LIES,out his flippin jaws ! We need far more checks and balances on Power, in this case, White Power in our House, Senate, and White House ( of Power), cause we look more and more like the Banana Hammock Republic, than the Leader and the Beacon of  leadership Lighting the way in the former Democratic and Independence leader way. People the world over, look to US for an excellent example of Freedom, Rights, and Fair Elections.    Who didn't see this as a likely possibility, as Trumpp is an impossibility, that enables ignorance, while leading a cult like following, till it exhausts reason, and o/r, Jimmy Jones Kool Aids for ASSES 

 
 
 
Thomas
13.1.1  Thomas  replied to  igknorantzrulz @13.1    2 weeks ago

It is like a bad fever-dream...

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online


Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
CB
Ender
Kavika
Sean Treacy
igknorantzrulz
pat wilson
arkpdx
cjcold


52 visitors