A bunch of Never Trumpers!!!11!
1 Like
Actually, I just realized he only said heād take them. LOL me.
āHere you go kids, buy whatever you want. And donāt mind my security guys following you around.ā
2 Likes
Seriously though walk me through how even a dullard like Thomas or Alito reasons something like this into something resembling a constitutional principle. Thereās literally no way.
If something like that is allowed to stand, it not only renders the popular vote in that state meaningless; it renders ALL VOTES in presidential elections meaningless. There would be no point in even printing the candidatesā names on ballots going forward. The outcome of every election is predetermined based on which party controls the legislature in each state.
It blows my fking mind that itās being seriously discussed by adults anywhere.
Why the fuck did I turn this on? Way too early to start drinking.
3 Likes
I just had to look this up:
The forest area in Austria is 48% compared to 34% in the US, 38% in Canada and 69% in Japan for example. Globally itās about 31%.
I am still interested in what Trump thinks a forest nation or forest city is.
1 Like
Legally, technically, yes but whoās going to enforce it?
Kinda similar wrt how stupid norms are. Why canāt the GOP just lie about the number of votes? Like when McCain did a thumbs down canāt they just be like he actually did a thumbs up? Who enforces these counts? How does everything work? Why is everything so fucked?
4 Likes
Ah, yes, Vienna is beautiful in the summer.
4 Likes
Itās not really that big a stretch if you just look at the literal text 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.
Now sure, most States appoint their Electors based on who won the popular vote in the State but they donāt have to do that and Maine and Nebraska famously donāt.
Appearances. Dictators around the world āwinā their elections. Having a process, no matter how obviously rigged and undemocratic, provides deniability for their supporters and suppresses dissent. If Trump gets the electors to overturn the will of the Pennsylvania voters, youāll see awval and everyone from busto MAGA chuds to almost all the GOP Senators saying āpoints not yards, thems the rules.ā The only principle is power.
4 Likes
Ok, but I think the argument here is there must be some other legal principles in play. Like do we believe that a state legislature can convene on November 15th and pass a bill that says, āour state grants electors to whoever receives the least amount of votesā?
Iām really not worries about them doing that still. Most swing states got den govs, some have dem supreme courts, plus most of these legislators arenāt gonna go all in just for trump. Maybe if they could do it for the house and Senate too
Plus donors wont be on board. Something like that would be incredibly destavilizing.
The real worry is them stopping the mail in ballot count after a few days via supreme court
No. Equal time provisions that used to apply to broadcast tv and radio stations were done away with some time ago.
Yes, the state can pass a law directing their EVs however they want, but PA (and every state) already have laws on the books directing how those EVs are allocated. In order to change how itās done this year, theyāll have to pass a new law that repeals the old one. The legislature alone canāt do it when thereās already a law on the books.
Youāve never played Heads I win Tails you lose before?
3 Likes
Sure, Iām not saying thereās a realistic chance the PA legislature will manage to pull off their scheme but I could see Republicans trying to pull it off in states they control as a last ditch effort to steal the election and Thomas and Alito just shrugging it off.
Using Mr. used to be standard practice for journalists on second reference for a President. I have noticed writers who do it with just about anybody, even criminal suspects, and I have no idea why they do that.
If they actually change those laws in multiple states, I would expect even the liberals on the court to shrug it off. Itās plainly constitutional, even if it is anti-democratic. Just like the Electoral College itself.
Looks like the equal time rule still exists, but not the fairness doctrine
1 Like