Democrats are bringing a knife to a gun fight - Trump WILL steal the election

Read this, Democrats, and wake up:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/nov/12/trump-election-concede-republicans-democrats

The naive Democrats think that Trump is just being petulant and in denial and everything will be fine.

They look at the lawsuits being tossed and feel pretty relaxed.

The lawsuits are just window-dressing. They are just to sow doubt. The real action will be, getting the Republican legislatures in swing states to select unfaithful electors who won't respect the popular vote, claiming falsely that it is doubtful. This is actually NOT unconstitutional and there will nothing to do to reverse it once it happens.

So, if the Democrats don't get organized and put pressure on the State legislatures to respect the will of the people in their states, suddenly they will be in the losing end of this gun fight, with ineffective knives, and Trump will have stolen the election. It will be too late.

Then there will be unrest in the streets, and Trump will use his newly appointed Secretary of Defense to crush it, which is why he fired the last one, who would have opposed it.

Welcome to dictatorship, America. Don't say you weren't warned.

 

Or maybe he will make up some phony dossier about Russian collusion......

 

That is rather distressing however I don't think it will happen. Not in 3 months at least. Peruse this and I think you will see why. In many states Faithless Electors will simply get a fine and have their votes canceled. And it will take TIME for people to overturn going on 240 years of tradition There may be time enough to overturn the election even so, but there always was actually and it's never happened yet.

THE worst thing that may happen is there may be a close call. And if that occurs I think the EC is dead, Senate Republicans or not, which may be worth it. (a close call, NOTHING is worth 4 more years of Trump)

 

How can Trump steal the election, if he goes thru proper legal channels?

Why is it Democrats hate the law? They illegally rewrote state election laws on the fly before the election, now they cry foul when the law is followed by Republicans to challenge the election.

It was not until Dec 13th, 2000, before the Bush V. Gore challenge was settled. So challenging elections is fine and dandy when the dems do it, but it's a dictatorship when Republicans do it?

 

oh good grief. You mean like votes that were for Trump but got cast to Hillary?

Oops, being a leftist partisan, you chose to omit that

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_electors_in_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election

 

So you misunderstood entirely what I said... it flew over your head. I didn't say anything about not having the right to contest and pursue it. I said, getting unfaithful electors to ignore the certified results.

By the way, EVEN if the SC tosses out the changed election laws by not allowing any of the votes that arrived after November 3 in Pennsylvania, I hope you are aware that those are about 10,000 and therefore they won't change the result.

And so that you know, I'm not a Democrat. I'm just saying, Democrats should wake up.

 

No, the faithless electors are not even the only avenue. State legislatures can appoint an alternative slate of electors and Congress would pick which ones to consider. And even if they don't, Congress delegations can refuse to count the votes of some electors. Trump has more avenues than you think, and if he sufficiently threatens the House Representatives (of sponsoring an alternative candidate to beat them in the primaries when they run for re-election), nothing is off the table given how terrified the Republicans are of Trump. The votes on all of this are done by delegation, one vote per delegation, not by number of representatives. The Republicans have more delegation. It is within their power to change the result of the election and elect a candidate who was not elected by the people in the swing states.

Here are the top five priorities for a politician of ANY party ANYWHERE in the world"

1. Be reelected
2. Be reelected
3. Be reelected
4. Be reelected
5. Be reelected

Observe that doing well by the country, respecting the will of the people, and preserving Democracy, are NOT in these top five priorities.

Don't be so confident. We are used to thinking that this will never happen in America, that it's stuff for South American, Eastern European, and African dictatorships... but that was before Donald Trump.

 

If Biden wins a state, the Democrats choose the electors.

/Thread

 

OY VEY!!! When the legal challenges play out, and if it's determined Trump lost, HE'LL LEAVE!!! God Almighty, the FDA needs to make tranquillizers available over the counter!

 

That is absolutely not true. You are misinformed. If by the Safe Harbor date of December 8 there is no certification, the State Legislature picks the slate of electors. Which is why Trump's lawsuits also aim at delaying certification.

So, dear, your /Thread is hereby cancelled.

Get informed.

 

Do you really believe results will have been certified by then? You've made a lot of assumptions here. I assume you're a RINO never trumper. It still makes you look partisan democrat when you support them. There are many more problems than just PA. There are issues in WI, MI, and now GA. Lots of things might be challenged, and lots of room for fraud to be extricated from the results. We'll see soon enough.

 

^This condescending and relaxed attitude is what will doom the Democrats, like the article in the OP correctly suggested. Thanks for providing a prime example of bringing a knife to the gun fight. Again, the lawsuits are not the point. The electoral college, its electors, and the count of the EC votes in Congress are the point. That you don't see it, doesn't mean that I need tranquilizers.

 

Someone else started a thread with this article earlier.

The media is starting to subtly shift from "Biden won, no doubt," to "Trump's lawyers might have a legally compelling cases in one or more states." Then media concludes that if Trump wins legally, he "stole" the election if courts legitimately side with the Trump team. The media is busy setting up a scenario for "justifiable" chaos and riots if Trump happens to come out ahead, legally. That is awful for the country.

Before social media and instant information, we used to wait for legal processes play out however they played out. Now media indoctrinates people on both sides to take a side on unsettled matters and think of their opinion, created by media, is an "absolute fact".

I think Trump's chances of winning re-election are a long shot which probably won't work out for him. But there is "a chance" they will. If they do, then nothing was "stolen". Media just set up false expectations and set the stage for anger, violence and more "Trump hate". That is all.

 

LOL. Didn't a few coastal states legalize heroine?

 

That's a conspiracy theory, I didn't know you were talking about fringe kooksville stuff

 

We know that the news media and the polling companies all lied about the blue wave, and Biden landslides to tamp down the vote. I have always been skeptical of the polls by these people, now they are irreverent. Pollsters are nothing but worthless partisan hacks trying to influence elections in favor of Democrats.

 

Well, read the article in the original post. That doesn't seem like a conspiracy theory to me. By the way, it's EXACTLY what Trump's deputy campaign manager said two days ago in an interview with Julie Mason of Sirius XM POTUS radio. And it's what the governor of Florida is saying Pennsylvania should do.

Are these conspiracy theorists too?

I resent being called a conspiracy theorist. I'm anything but. I've been very reasonable here ever since I joined.

I hope their effort doesn't succeed, but it is definitely not impossible.

 

I think the Defund the Police boneheaded movement, the arson, looting, and riots, and Biden's threat to do away with fossil fuels, had to do with why the polls missed. I think Biden lost a lot of voters for these reasons. Maybe if these boneheaded moves hadn't happened, the results would have been closer to the polls or at least to the acceptable statistical errors.

A member here who works in the polling industry has said that these organizations doesn't have an interest in being wrong, because it decreases their chances of being hired by businesses. They have a reputation to take care of, and it's their livelihood.

Yes, they were wrong, but I'm sure they lament it. The idea that they do this to influence the election is tempting but someone who is an insider in the industry, doesn't endorse this view.

 

Again, you misunderstood it. The lawsuits are window dressing. There isn't any "Trump's lawyers might have a legally compelling case." Are you aware that the lawyers are not even arguing widespread fraud??? The objective of the lawsuits is not to win and reverse the result (the number of votes these lawsuit target are insufficient to change the result, like the Pennsylvania late ballots case; there aren't more than 10,000 late ballots). The objective is to sow doubt, to justify the next moves, which are much more consequential.

 

Like bringing a knife to a gun fight, you can't bring common sense to a delusion fight. You just have to watch them torment themselves.

 

Which states' election laws say this?
Link, please.

 

No, I didn't misunderstand. If the courts agree with Trump's lawyers that the vote was unfairly diluted by potentially fraudulent ballots because poll watchers were illegally banned from "watching", or that voter discrimination occurred because in-person voters were treated differently from mail-in voters....then one of the court's possible remedies would be to tell the state legislators that the vote is uncertifiable, in which case the legislators would chose the electors as they see fit. The Trump team can't make a direct plea to the state legislators, or they technically could, but for that ruling to come from a court judge is obviously optimal.

Yes, I am aware that the lawyers are not arguing fraud. I've written as much on other threads. For some reason, a few members don't believe me. LOL

The objective of the lawsuit is to gain a favorable outcome, either by vote audits result in reversing the result or by having court orders for state representatives choose electors. There are a few possible outcomes here which the courts could choose, including tossing the entire suit out, in which case, the Trump team fails.

Anyway, I've been trying to communicate on other threads that Trump does have a chance to win even though I believe the odds are against him. Some members think I'm just an overly-optimistic deluded "Trumper" because media have falsely been drumming the message that Biden has won "guaranteed"....well before Biden has won. No one has won yet.

So, yes, I am paying close attention to the details and have not misunderstood anything, "again" or at any other time.

The courts are going to decide this and there is a slim probability that millions of Biden voters will be enraged (thanks to false media narratives).

 

It's hard to articulate a scenario that favours Trump without insults coming your way.

 

It is incorrect that Trump filed lawsuits to stop certification to somehow "force" the state legislature to choose electors. Trump's team did file to stop certification in order to prevent states from "rushing" to certify the vote before the courts have ruled on other legal complaints.

It is true, however that certifications are due by December 8th, either by the normal process, or by a court order for state legislators to override the normal process and choose electors.

 

Yes, and I don't even think Trump's attorneys will prevail. Simply stating that "Trump has a chance," appears to be inspiring some negative emotions and pushback.