The Current Events, News, and Politics Thread
12-09-2020, 04:02 PM
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,501
Total Cats: 4,080
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...h%20Tables.pdf
You won't hear about it, because Big Tech can't allow Trump to take his rightful place.
BILL OF COMPLAINT
Our Country stands at an important crossroads. Either the Constitution matters and must be followed, even when some officials consider it inconvenient or out of date, or it is simply a piece of parchment on display at the National Archives. We ask the Court to choose the former.
Lawful elections are at the heart of our constitutional democracy. The public, and indeed the candidates themselves, have a compelling interest in ensuring that the selection of a President is legitimate. If that trust is lost, the American Experiment will founder. A dark cloud hangs over the 2020 Presidential election.
...
Our Country stands at an important crossroads. Either the Constitution matters and must be followed, even when some officials consider it inconvenient or out of date, or it is simply a piece of parchment on display at the National Archives. We ask the Court to choose the former.
Lawful elections are at the heart of our constitutional democracy. The public, and indeed the candidates themselves, have a compelling interest in ensuring that the selection of a President is legitimate. If that trust is lost, the American Experiment will founder. A dark cloud hangs over the 2020 Presidential election.
...
Reply
0
0
12-09-2020, 04:10 PM
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,501
Total Cats: 4,080
meanwhile:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncn...UpafbDp0ObWih0
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncn...UpafbDp0ObWih0
TECH NEWS
U.S. government calls for breakup of Facebook
The Federal Trade Commission sued to break up Facebook on Wednesday, asking a federal court to force the sell-off of assets such as Instagram and WhatsApp.
Reply
0
0
12-09-2020, 04:12 PM
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,501
Total Cats: 4,080
Biden didn't campaign because he was relying on cheating. He underperformed everywhere except key cities in key states where the results are highly questionable. But we aren't allowed to double check on these things. I've said too much...
Reply
0
0
12-09-2020, 04:42 PM
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,049
Total Cats: 6,608
Article I, Section 2 of the constitution specifies that each state's representation within the House of Representatives shall be proportional to the number of individuals residing in that state.
Article II, Section 1, then goes on to specify that the number of Electors from each state shall be equal to the number of Senators and Representatives to which that state is entitled in the Congress.
The constitution very clearly and unambiguously structures the Federal government such that each state's representation, both in the Congress and in the choosing of the President, is proportionate to the number of individuals residing within that state.
Reply
0
0
12-09-2020, 04:50 PM
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,501
Total Cats: 4,080
That is absolutely false.
Article I, Section 2 of the constitution specifies that each state's representation within the House of Representatives shall be proportional to the number of individuals residing in that state.
Article II, Section 1, then goes on to specify that the number of Electors from each state shall be equal to the number of Senators and Representatives to which that state is entitled in the Congress.
The constitution very clearly and unambiguously structures the Federal government such that each state's representation, both in the Congress and in the choosing of the President, is proportionate to the number of individuals residing within that state.
Article I, Section 2 of the constitution specifies that each state's representation within the House of Representatives shall be proportional to the number of individuals residing in that state.
Article II, Section 1, then goes on to specify that the number of Electors from each state shall be equal to the number of Senators and Representatives to which that state is entitled in the Congress.
The constitution very clearly and unambiguously structures the Federal government such that each state's representation, both in the Congress and in the choosing of the President, is proportionate to the number of individuals residing within that state.
Thanks.
Tell me more about why fbi finally admitted to having seth Rich's laptop?
Reply
0
0
12-09-2020, 04:54 PM
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,049
Total Cats: 6,608
Interestingly, doing precisely that invalidates another false claim you made a few posts ago. Specifically, the claim that "Safe Harbor deadline is not in the Constitution; only inauguration day."
Well, it actually is. And googling "contested presidential elections" explains why.
The first result that comes up in that search is the 1876 election. And as a direct result of that debacle, Congress passed the Electoral Count Act of 1887. This act specifies the date on which Electors are to be chosen by the States, and the date on which the Electors are to cast their votes, as well as creating the Safe Harbor deadline (3 U.S.C. § 5)
How is any of that "in the constitution" as you say? Simple, Article II, Section 1:
The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
The constitution specifically enumerated that power to Congress, and therefore, Congress' exercise of that power is specifically constitutional.
Well, it actually is. And googling "contested presidential elections" explains why.
The first result that comes up in that search is the 1876 election. And as a direct result of that debacle, Congress passed the Electoral Count Act of 1887. This act specifies the date on which Electors are to be chosen by the States, and the date on which the Electors are to cast their votes, as well as creating the Safe Harbor deadline (3 U.S.C. § 5)
How is any of that "in the constitution" as you say? Simple, Article II, Section 1:
The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
Reply
1
1
12-09-2020, 04:58 PM
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,501
Total Cats: 4,080
Interestingly, doing precisely that invalidates another false claim you made a few posts ago. Specifically, the claim that "Safe Harbor deadline is not in the Constitution; only inauguration day."
Well, it actually is. And googling "contested presidential elections" explains why.
The first result that comes up in that search is the 1876 election. And as a direct result of that debacle, Congress passed the Electoral Count Act of 1887. This act specifies the date on which Electors are to be chosen by the States, and the date on which the Electors are to cast their votes, as well as creating the Safe Harbor deadline (3 U.S.C. § 5)
How is any of that "in the constitution" as you say? Simple, Article II, Section 1:
The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
The constitution specifically enumerated that power to Congress, and therefore, Congress' exercise of that power is specifically constitutional.
Well, it actually is. And googling "contested presidential elections" explains why.
The first result that comes up in that search is the 1876 election. And as a direct result of that debacle, Congress passed the Electoral Count Act of 1887. This act specifies the date on which Electors are to be chosen by the States, and the date on which the Electors are to cast their votes, as well as creating the Safe Harbor deadline (3 U.S.C. § 5)
How is any of that "in the constitution" as you say? Simple, Article II, Section 1:
The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
And has a president ever been determined after that date?
Has a president ever been inaugurated after jan 20?
If you answered yes and no respectfully, why is youtube using this date as a benchmark?
Dec 14 is the date youre quoting, btw.
Reply
0
0
12-09-2020, 05:27 PM
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,049
Total Cats: 6,608
It's neither a popular vote, nor a "PER STATE" vote (quoting you directly), but rather a hybrid of the two. Within each state, electors are chosen by popular vote.
Frankly, I dislike the "winner take all" system of selecting Electors. It's led directly to the situation we find ourselves in today, where people fear that they have no choice but to vote for Clown A, in order to prevent Clown B from winning.
The Single Transferable Vote system would be much preferred, in my opinion. And there's nothing in the Constitution which specifies that States must nominate their electors in one specific way.
Because they feel confident that Seth Rich was in possession of information which would lead to the arrest and conviction of Hillary Clinton, and now that she's not a candidate for President, it's safe to reveal this.
Reply
0
0
