OK, now we descend into the STOLEN election

[TPFanatic]

I like Bill Gates but not the foundation's disingenuous promotion of male genital mutilation in Africa.

[shawross]

Bill gates was a good friend of Jeffrey Epstein and Bill is a crypto J.

Yes Gates is a wonderful human being.

[TPFanatic]

Bill Gates is behind the space lasers behind the forest fires?

[mpcook]

Bill Gates is behind the space lasers behind the forest fires?

That's funny, he doesn't look Jewish.

[ajkula66]

That's funny, he doesn't look Jewish.

I don't know what it means to "look Jewish" but he does look like an evil nerd, at least to my eyes. Never liked the guy and don't trust him as far as I could throw him.

[mpcook]

That's funny, he doesn't look Jewish.

I don't know what it means to "look Jewish" but he does look like an evil nerd, at least to my eyes. Never liked the guy and don't trust him as far as I could throw him.

That was a reference to a joke, I guess it's an inside joke. And also a reference to the "Jewish laser rays" that started the California fires. According to the Q's.

[ajkula66]

That was a reference to a joke, I guess it's an inside joke. And also a reference to the "Jewish laser rays" that started the California fires. According to the Q's.

In other words, parallel universe. Got it...

[mpcook]

That was a reference to a joke, I guess it's an inside joke. And also a reference to the "Jewish laser rays" that started the California fires. According to the Q's.

In other words, parallel universe. Got it...

Yes although unfortunately there are people who believe in this Qanon Universe here on Earth.

[ajkula66]

Yes although unfortunately there are people who believe in this Qanon Universe here on Earth.

I may be embarrassing myself by saying this, but somehow I've missed on the whole "Q" thing and am still mystified on why anyone in their right mind would believe in existence of such an entity to begin with.

[mpcook]

Yes although unfortunately there are people who believe in this Qanon Universe here on Earth.

I may be embarrassing myself by saying this, but somehow I've missed on the whole "Q" thing and am still mystified on why anyone in their right mind would believe in existence of such an entity to begin with.

The answer is that no one in their right mind would believe it, those who do, are not of right mind.

[shawross]

This thread is about a so called "Stolen Election". If you want to know who has been driving a lot of what has happened behind the scenes I give you the name " Norm Eisen"

From his Wikipedia bio is the following.

"Early life and education

Eisen's parents were immigrants to the United States of Jewish ancestry and he grew up working in his family's hamburger stand in Los Angeles. He received his B.A. degree from Brown University in 1985 and his J.D. degree from Harvard Law School in 1991, both with honors. While at Harvard, he met future President Barack Obama, then also a first-year law student."

For more interesting information visit the the complete Wiki page.

[RealBlackStuff]

And the "stealing" keeps going on:
Trump Shifted Campaign-Donor Money Into His Private Business After Losing The Election

[dr_st]

I find this more interesting:
https://www.rt.com/usa/514790-microsoft ... ans-biden/

Microsoft said its political action committee will bar all donations to Republican lawmakers who refused to certify Joe Biden’s election win, while announcing a change in focus to the “promotion of democracy.”

(Microsoft is just the last of many).

Apparently, in the current "democratic" USA, under the currently elected "democratic" regime, even an official representative, exercising his legal right and requirement to vote in the house of representative according to his beliefs - is considered "undemocratic".

[Ibthink]

Yes, trying to invalidate an election on the grounds of "I don't like the results" is definitely against the very principle of democracy - the people decide who rules in an election - and it would be considered so in any other democratic country.

Also: It is also within Microsofts (and other companies) legal rights to withhold donations to whomever they want - in fact, the USA being a stable state is within the interest of big corporations, so it makes sense that they do not want to support people who support an insurrection against the US government. Instability is bad for business.

[dr_st]

Yes, trying to invalidate an election on the grounds of "I don't like the results" is definitely against the very principle of democracy - the people decide who rules in an election - and it would be considered so in any other democratic country.

To an extent, every vote in the house is based on "I like this and I don't like that". But that's not quite the point.

If the certification vote was merely a formality, it would not have been held at all. The electors certify the results according to the laws that describe the function of the electoral college. Why must the house "certify" it again?

I would propose the following question to you: suppose that you were a member of the house, and you somehow became convinced that the election (or some part of it) was fraudulent. You really genuinely became convinced that the corner stone, the main principle of democracy was compromised. What would you do in this case when asked to certify? What would you feel was your civil duty?

And please don't try to take this off a tangent like "anyone who believes this is stupid" or "they know it's not true so they are just liars". That is not the point. The question (consider it a theoretical one) - is what would you do if you were truly convinced, and what do you think a representative should do in such a case.

Also: It is also within Microsofts (and other companies) legal rights to withhold donations to whomever they want - in fact, the USA being a stable state is within the interest of big corporations, so it makes sense that they do not want to support people who support an insurrection against the US government. Instability is bad for business.

You didn't see me question their legal right, did you? I would challenge your assumption that they do so "because they want stability". I see it just as that article said - "virtue signaling". But even that is not the point.

The point is that - creating an environment where representatives are directly penalized for the way they vote (not by the public, who can vote to replace them, but by a handful of non-elected power groups), is in itself, very bad for democracy.

[Ibthink]

If the certification vote was merely a formality, it would not have been held at all. The electors certify the results according to the laws that describe the function of the electoral college. Why must the house "certify" it again?

Because the USA had disputed elections in the past, notably the election of 1876. The certification process was set in place to prevent such disputes, not to further them.

Congress does NOT elect the president (unless no candidate receives the required number of electoral votes). This inherently makes the certification process in congress a formality, because if it wasn't, congress would effectively elect the president, which would be unconstituional. The president is elected through the electoral college and the states are responsible for the election of the electors, not congress.

I would propose the following question to you: suppose that you were a member of the house, and you somehow became convinced that the election (or some part of it) was fraudulent. You really genuinely became convinced that the corner stone, the main principle of democracy was compromised. What would you do in this case when asked to certify? What would you feel was your civil duty?

Again - it is not the job of congress to overwrite the elections held in the states. Disputes are meant to be resolved on the state level, which is what happened after the 2020 presidential elections - there were recounts and multiple lawsuits in court. And after all was said and done, the states chose to certify and the electoral college met and voted.

The civil duty of a member of the house is to know his place within the US constitution. As a house member, you have to know that it isn't your job to decide the election - and that if you try to, it can damage the whole political system and undermine democracy.

[mpcook]

The point is that - creating an environment where representatives are directly penalized for the way they vote (not by the public, who can vote to replace them, but by a handful of non-elected power groups), is in itself, very bad for democracy.

Representatives *should* be penalized for how they vote, by those who disagree, by voting for an alternative candidate, speaking out, and/or refraining from donating funds to them. In the USA, the SCOTUS has decided that corporations are people. So, this is inherently democratic, where we or our corporate brothers and sisters can donate election funds to whomever we prefer.

[dr_st]

Because the USA had disputed elections in the past, notably the election of 1876. The certification process was set in place to prevent such disputes, not to further them.

Congress does NOT elect the president (unless no candidate receives the required number of electoral votes). This inherently makes the certification process in congress a formality, because if it wasn't, congress would effectively elect the president, which would be unconstituional. The president is elected through the electoral college and the states are responsible for the election of the electors, not congress.

If a process exists merely to simply uphold what was already decided, and no other outcome is considered possible - then this process does nothing to prevent disputes / increase the confidence in the outcome; such a process is completely useless.

If there is a "vote", but you can only "vote" one way, then this process is not a vote, and there is nothing democratic about it.

The way it was done, because of the representatives who voted against, actually increases the confidence in the result. Because it shows that there was some deliberation, some discussion of merits, and in the end the majority voted to confirm. It is no coincidence that this is exactly when Trump stopped fighting. He used all the tools available to him to try to convince the legislators that the election was fraudulent, and failed to convince enough of them. End of story.

The theoretical possibility of a congress not certifying does not equate with the congress electing the president. The outcome may be - requirement of additional checks, or in the worst case - declaring the entire election invalid and running another election.

Again - it is not the job of congress to overwrite the elections held in the states. Disputes are meant to be resolved on the state level, which is what happened after the 2020 presidential elections - there were recounts and multiple lawsuits in court. And after all was said and done, the states chose to certify and the electoral college met and voted.

The responsibilities of the states versus the federal government is a subject of constant tension in the US. It is only reasonable that there won't be a unanimous agreement at all times.

[Ibthink]

If a process exists merely to simply uphold what was already decided, and no other outcome is considered possible - then this process does nothing to prevent disputes / increase the confidence in the outcome; such a process is completely useless.

It appears you do not understand the process: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_Count_Act

"The Act aims to minimize Congressional involvement in election disputes, instead placing the primary responsibility to resolve disputes upon the states. The Act sets out procedures and deadlines for the states to follow in resolving disputes, certifying results, and sending the results to Congress. If a state follows these "safe harbor" standards and the state's governor properly submits one set of electoral votes, the Act states that that "final" determination "shall govern." The Act thus relegates Congress to resolving only a narrow class of disputes, such as if a governor has certified two different slates of electors or if a state fails to certify its results under the Act's procedures. Congress may also reject votes under the Act for other specific defects, such as ministerial error, if an elector or candidate are ineligible for office, or if the electoral college votes were not "regularly given.""

None of the states failed to certify the election results and none of the state sent competing slates of electors (which is what happened in the aforementioned election of 1876).

If there is a "vote", but you can only "vote" one way, then this process is not a vote, and there is nothing democratic about it.

It isn't really a vote, it is a formality, unless very specific circumstances arise, which did not happen in the 2020 election.

The way it was done, because of the representatives who voted against, actually increases the confidence in the result.

Considering a large part of the Republican base still believes the lies about the stolen election, I don't think this is true.

The theoretical possibility of a congress not certifying does not equate with the congress electing the president. The outcome may be - requirement of additional checks, or in the worst case - declaring the entire election invalid and running another election.

No, historic precedent tells us what would happen in such a situation: Congress ends up deciding who becomes president.

[mpcook]

If a process exists merely to simply uphold what was already decided, and no other outcome is considered possible - then this process does nothing to prevent disputes / increase the confidence in the outcome; such a process is completely useless.

It appears you do not understand the process: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_Count_Act

"The Act aims to minimize Congressional involvement in election disputes, instead placing the primary responsibility to resolve disputes upon the states. The Act sets out procedures and deadlines for the states to follow in resolving disputes, certifying results, and sending the results to Congress. If a state follows these "safe harbor" standards and the state's governor properly submits one set of electoral votes, the Act states that that "final" determination "shall govern." The Act thus relegates Congress to resolving only a narrow class of disputes, such as if a governor has certified two different slates of electors or if a state fails to certify its results under the Act's procedures. Congress may also reject votes under the Act for other specific defects, such as ministerial error, if an elector or candidate are ineligible for office, or if the electoral college votes were not "regularly given.""

None of the states failed to certify the election results and none of the state sent competing slates of electors (which is what happened in the aforementioned election of 1876).

If there is a "vote", but you can only "vote" one way, then this process is not a vote, and there is nothing democratic about it.

It isn't really a vote, it is a formality, unless very specific circumstances arise, which did not happen in the 2020 election.

The way it was done, because of the representatives who voted against, actually increases the confidence in the result.

Considering a large part of the Republican base still believes the lies about the stolen election, I don't think this is true.

The theoretical possibility of a congress not certifying does not equate with the congress electing the president. The outcome may be - requirement of additional checks, or in the worst case - declaring the entire election invalid and running another election.

No, historic precedent tells us what would happen in such a situation: Congress ends up deciding who becomes president.

A German, an Israeil and an American walk into a bar. The German and the Israeil argue over the US election process, and the American tries to interject. The bartender serves a free round of The Real Black Stuff.

[ajkula66]

A German, an Israeil and an American walk into a bar. The German and the Israeil argue over the US election process, and the American tries to interject. The bartender serves a free round of The Real Black Stuff.

Only on TPF, for your reading pleasure...

[dr_st]

It isn't really a vote, it is a formality, unless very specific circumstances arise, which did not happen in the 2020 election.

If it isn't really a vote, then what exactly did these "147 republicans" voted for (or against)? You say I don't understand the process. Are you sure you do? If so, please explain. If the vote, or whatever it was, was not in accordance with the Act, therefore invalid - how come the speaker allowed it to even happen?

The Times article claims "a series of highly unusual objections" (without specifying what they were), and mentions specifically objections to results in Arizona and Pennsylvania as the only ones that were voted on (which even if both were sustained, would not be enough to overturn the election).

But all you see in most venues is "some Republicans voted to reject Biden and keep Trump as president". Would that be another case of mass media fabricating lies around some grain of truth and echoing those lies to the point that no one can really understand what actually took place? Sure seems a lot like it.

On the subject of the process, I see for example, that the very next paragraph in the Wikipedia article on the Electoral Count Act (which you chose not to quote) suggests that it may not be as clear-cut as you want me to believe:

The central provisions of the law have not been seriously tested in a disputed election.[7] Since the bill was enacted, some have doubted whether the Act can bind a future Congress.[8] Since the Constitution gives Congress the power to set its own procedural rules, it is possible that simple majorities of the House and Senate could set new rules for the joint session.[9] In the contentious 2000 presidential election, the law's timing provisions did play a role in court decisions, such as Bush v. Gore. The law has been criticized since it was enacted, with an early commenter describing it as "very confused, almost unintelligible."[10]:643 Modern commenters have stated that the law "invites misinterpretation," observing that it is "turgid and repetitious" and that "its central provisions seem contradictory."[11]:543

A German, an Israeil and an American walk into a bar. The German and the Israeil argue over the US election process, and the American tries to interject. The bartender serves a free round of The Real Black Stuff.

And to think that just a year ago we could totally organize an actual outing like the one you described! Oh well, let's hope things will slowly start getting back to normal now that vaccines are being rolled out.

[mpcook]

A German, an Israeil and an American walk into a bar. The German and the Israeil argue over the US election process, and the American tries to interject. The bartender serves a free round of The Real Black Stuff.

And to think that just a year ago we could totally organize an actual outing like the one you described! Oh well, let's hope things will slowly start getting back to normal now that vaccines are being rolled out.

Yes indeed! Face to face communicate lends itself to better understanding, chatting online about a detailed topic is tiresome and ineffective really. Now if we're chatting about hardware and software, that's a different story. We could list out the steps or explain the concept. Politics, not so much.

[Ibthink]

If it isn't really a vote, then what exactly did these "147 republicans" voted for (or against)? You say I don't understand the process. Are you sure you do? If so, please explain. If the vote, or whatever it was, was not in accordance with the Act, therefore invalid - how come the speaker allowed it to even happen?

Because this process normally is a formality - the protocol does not involve a vote, except for the case of objections. How it normally goes, we could see in 2017: Its a ceremonial act that normally doesn't take longer than a half hour.

I never claimed that a vote wasn't in accordance with the act. But just because something is allowed doesn't mean it is right to do - or in accordance with the idea behind the act, which definitely makes this process a ceremonial act, with the vote as a last resort measure if states fail to certify or send competing slates of electors.

And before you say "Democrats objected in 2017 as well, your own source says so" - yes, but different from Republicans in 2021, they didn't force a vote. Because despite their objections, they probably knew that such a move would be pointless & dangerous.

If a political party uses every trick in the book to game the system and to disrupt it, it is only natural that the system (in this case, democracy) can and will take damage. Of course, some parties don't want democracy - from history, there is a pretty well known example of a party using democracy's rules against itself. You probably know it.

The Times article claims "a series of highly unusual objections" (without specifying what they were), and mentions specifically objections to results in Arizona and Pennsylvania as the only ones that were voted on (which even if both were sustained, would not be enough to overturn the election).

I think we have discussed the objections in this thread long enough. And it is also well known that Republicans planned to object to all Swing States and only dropped this futile attempt at overturning the election after Trump's mob of insurrectionists had stormed the building.

But all you see in most venues is "some Republicans voted to reject Biden and keep Trump as president".

Well, this is the thing that those Republicans would want Trump voters to believe. After all, they think that their careers depend on it.

[cadillacmike68]

^^ pointless, yes. Dangerous, NO.

[crashnburn]

To me what's scary is..

#1 spend on US Budget - Military Lobby

Both Eisenhower (R) and JFK (D) warned about the Military Industrial Complex

Followed by
#2 Spend: A very opaque inefficient Pharma/ Healthcare/ Insurance industry

#3 Education spend breakdown making it more unaffordable every year.. due to improper allocation on important vs unimportant line items

And many such key things.. that are / need MIDDLE GROUND - BI PARTISAN solutioning and are beyond PARTISAN CONFLICTS..

None of the above is engaged with, tackled or looked at.. or discussed? Is it?

But people have been so POLARIZED by Media and Political data & viewpoints that OBJECTIVITY is just lost and issues like the above do not get the SPOTLIGHT they should.

Disappointing.

[shawross]

I couldn't agree more and people won't develop critical thinking by watching their TV.

Your #1 should have been MSM because that controls the narrative.

From that narrative they use fear as a weapon.

[crashnburn]

I couldn't agree more and people won't develop critical thinking by watching their TV.

Your #1 should have been MSM because that controls the narrative.

From that narrative they use fear as a weapon.

#0 - Media/ Press..& now Overarching Big Tech.. - Dangerous space.. But Freedom of Press/ Speech - Hence it cant be tackled as objectively or FIXED and is again a very PARTISAN space. Becomes more subjective.

Its easier and better to tackle what would easier dissection and benefit.

But 1, 2, 3 - Can be done with Process Diagrams and Accounting; and even with disagreements it would still be a space for IMPROVEMENT that affects all.

[cadillacmike68]

I couldn't agree more and people won't develop critical thinking by watching their TV.

Your #1 should have been MSM because that controls the narrative.

From that narrative they use fear as a weapon.

You mean LBFNMSM.

[RealBlackStuff]

And you think the Republicans are NOT stealing?
Think again!