The GTP Unofficial 2020 US Elections Thread

[Chrunch Houston]

In other news, has anyone noticed that youtube is autoplaying Trump ads, with no apparent way to stop it, when you go to the youtube homepage? What kind of crap is that?

Yes. How annoying. I have never heard any ads played like that. I just went through the settings to see if there was a setting to stop it, I couldn't find anything.

There are a lot of people also saying they are getting spam Trump ad texts on their phones. I suppose they texted something to 88022.

 

[Danoff]

Yes. How annoying. I have never heard any ads played like that. I just went through the settings to see if there was a setting to stop it, I couldn't find anything.

There are a lot of people also saying they are getting spam Trump ad texts on there phones. I suppose they texted something to 88022.

That's the part you responded to?

 

[Dotini]

I understand that. But that doesn't make it "right".

So okay, the law and the constitution don't make things "right" says you. So what does make "right"? Is it might? Does the most intelligent, powerful man ideally stand above the law? Should the largest mob you can gather make them judge, jury and executioner?

Either we are a nation of laws or we are not. The amendment process is rigorous but it is workable, and has achieved many important amendments.

@Danoff
The Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear by unanimous majority that electors will vote exactly according to their pledge.

Writing for the court, Justice Elena Kagan, in a decision peppered with references to the Broadway show Hamilton and the TV show Veep, said Electoral College delegates have "no ground for reversing" the statewide popular vote. That, she said, "accords with the Constitution — as well as with the trust of the Nation that here, We the People rule."

All further huffing and puffing about the EC is IMHO useless, posturing vanity, bearing no resemblance to reality in the United States.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

@Chrunch Houston, if you ever wanted to know what fake nooz looks like, it's that tweet you posted. This is just someone being taken out of context to drum up clicks.

Yes, because I am looking for clicks.

That's the part you responded to?

He was explaining why AOC did what she did. What was there to argue about?

The Trump ads are intrusive. That is why I responded to it.

 

[McLaren]

Yes, because I am looking for clicks.

He's referring to Benny whose looking to create manipulated feedback from his followers of which you fell hook, line, and sinker for.

 

[Biggles]

So okay, the law and the constitution don't make things "right" says you. So what does make "right"? Is it might? Does the most intelligent, powerful man ideally stand above the law? Should the largest mob you can gather make them judge, jury and executioner?

Good lord.

How about common sense? The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact would appear to be a step in that direction.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

He's referring to Benny whose looking to create manipulated feedback from his followers of which you fell hook, line, and sinker for.

I don't care about 'benny'. I right clicked on 'copy video address'. The video comes along with the tweet attached.

Someone else brought up benny to me. I looked up where he worked at the time, but I can't remember where. The video was the important thing.

Biden is nominated, the looney left loves Bernie, and AOC, there is fear that the looney left will stay home, so they send AOC out there, and she does nothing to get the looney left's vote to go to Biden.
that is where I was coming from.

I didn't read the Daily beast article posted by @Eunos_Cosmo, but I took him at his word that that was not AOC gone rogue.

 

[UKMikey]

There’s constitutional precedence for the electoral college.

This is why in the video I posted that noone seems to have watched, nobody wants to get rid of it. They just want to neuter its power to override the national vote.

I don't care about 'benny'.

LOL.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

LOL.

What do you mean by that?

 

[UKMikey]

What do you mean by that?

You keep posting his BS tweets by accident.

 

[McLaren]

I don't care about 'benny'. I right clicked on 'copy video address'. The video comes along with the tweet attached.

Someone else brought up benny to me. I looked up where he worked at the time, but I can't remember where. The video was the important thing.

Biden is nominated, the looney left loves Bernie, and AOC, there is fear that the looney left will stay home, so they send AOC out there, and she does nothing to get the looney left's vote to go to Biden.
that is where I was coming from.

I didn't read the Daily beast article posted by @Eunos_Cosmo, but I took him at his word that that was not AOC gone rogue.

That's nice & all.

It doesn't change though, that you reacted & did exactly what Benny intended for that video to do.

 

[polysmut]

Is the situation with the USA and its constitution equivalent to a contract between all of the states?

 

[Danoff]

@Danoff
The Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear by unanimous majority that electors will vote exactly according to their pledge.

No. They made it clear that states can require electors to vote a certain way.

 

[Dotini]

No. They made it clear that states can require electors to vote a certain way.

It seems to me that if a state required electors to vote for other than the state's popular vote winner, then that state's vote would be subject to immediate legal action and remedy by the federal government. Which would obviously be upheld by the Supreme Court's 9-0 ruling on the matter earlier this year.

 

[Danoff]

It seems to me that if a state required electors to vote for other than the state's popular vote winner, then that state's vote would be subject to immediate legal action and remedy by the federal government. Which would obviously be upheld by the Supreme Court's 9-0 ruling on the matter earlier this year.

Not only is that not what the supreme court decided, I gave you an article explaining why that is exactly wrong. Also, I'd like to draw your attention to Maine and Nebraska, which have been disproving this notion since 1972 and 1992 respectively.

 

[Dotini]

Not only is that not what the supreme court decided, I gave you an article explaining why that is exactly wrong.

Are you referring to the NPVIC? It seems to me that federal law is going to outweigh a compact between states. For example, the secession and Confederation of the Southern states prior to the civil war was clearly not legal.

Can you cite an authoritative source which confirms your claim that the Supreme Court's recent decision allows states to direct an elector to vote in the electoral college for a candidate other than that state's popular vote winner? That seems to stand in direct contradiction to what Justice Kagan was quoted as saying in one of my posts above. I feel the need to dig into this more deeply now. Perhaps you are right, and I'm just not digging deep enough.

 

[Danoff]

Are you referring to the NPVIC?

Yes.

It seems to me that federal law is going to outweigh a compact between states. For example, the secession and Confederation of the Southern states prior to the civil war was clearly not legal.

So, hang on, let me try to follow this. If states are not allowed to withdraw from the federal government and nation, it therefore follows that they cannot direct electors to vote according to anything other than the popular vote winner within the state.... yea... no.

Can you cite an authoritative source which confirms your claim that the Supreme Court's recent decision allows states to direct an elector to vote in the electoral college for a candidate other than that state's popular vote winner?

As I said 5 seconds ago, I gave you an article explaining it. It doesn't matter whether you consider the source to be "authoritative", it's interpreting a supreme court opinion. You can just refer to the opinion to explain why you think the article (and the compact) is wrong about its interpretation of the law.

I also gave you Maine and Nebraska, which have been doing this for decades. Specifically... Maine and Nebraska have been instructing some of their electors to vote for a candidate other than the state's popular vote winner (which you say is not possible and would not be allowed) for decades.

That seems to stand in direct contradiction to what Justice Kagan was quoted as saying in one of my posts above. I feel the need to dig into this more deeply now. Perhaps you are right, and I'm just not digging deep enough.

I'm not sure which quote you're referring to.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Are you referring to the NPVIC? It seems to me that federal law is going to outweigh a compact between states. For example, the secession and Confederation of the Southern states prior to the civil war was clearly not legal.

Can you cite an authoritative source which confirms your claim that the Supreme Court's recent decision allows states to direct an elector to vote in the electoral college for a candidate other than that state's popular vote winner? That seems to stand in direct contradiction to what Justice Kagan was quoted as saying in one of my posts above. I feel the need to dig into this more deeply now. Perhaps you are right, and I'm just not digging deep enough.

On July 6, 2020 the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in the case Chiafalo v. Washington and the related case Colorado Department of State v. Baca that it is within a state's power to enforce laws that penalize so-called "faithless electors" or allow for their removal and replacement.[76] The decision reaffirmed the precedent from McPherson v. Blacker that states have plenary power to appoint electors and further decided that this power extends to the ability to bind electors to their pledges by stating, "Nothing in the Constitution expressly prohibits States from taking away presidential electors’ voting discretion as Washington does."[77] While not a direct ruling on the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, the ruling that states may bind their electors to the state's popular vote is seen by some as strong precedent that states may choose to bind their electors to the national popular vote via their plenary appointment power.

Sauce

 

[Dotini]

I'm singularly unimpressed with the scholarship so far presented in this forum on this little issue. So, out of an abundance of prudence, I'm continuing to research the problem. Meanwhile, ponder this statement representing the 9-0 majority of the Supreme Court:

Writing for the court, Justice Elena Kagan, in a decision peppered with references to the Broadway show Hamilton and the TV show Veep, said Electoral College delegates have "no ground for reversing" the statewide popular vote. That, she said, "accords with the Constitution — as well as with the trust of the Nation that here, We the People rule."

 

[Danoff]

I'm singularly unimpressed with the scholarship so far presented in this forum on this little issue. So, out of an abundance of prudence, I'm continuing to research the problem. Meanwhile, ponder this statement representing the 9-0 majority of the Supreme Court:

...and it should be clear to you... completely and totally inescapably clear to you, that you are misunderstanding her, because Maine and Nebraska!

Specifically, your misunderstanding is that she means they have no grounds when the state has instructed them to vote for the state's popular vote winner. She means that it is under state control, not theirs. Which is precisely the power that the compact wishes to use.

 

[Dotini]

...and it should be clear to you... completely and totally inescapably clear to you, that you are misunderstanding her, because Maine and Nebraska!

Specifically, you're misunderstanding is that she means they have no grounds when the state has instructed them to vote for the state's popular vote winner. She means that it is under state control, not theirs. Which is precisely the power that the compact wishes to use.

Maybe you are right - but I don't think so. Therefore I will continue to investigate and report back. Perhaps Maine and Nebraska have been out of line, and will have to now change their ways? I have no idea, since nothing definitive has appeared in the forum to settle the matter one way or the other.

 

[DesertPenguin]

Maybe you are right - but I don't think so.

And therein lies all of our problems. Not just you, but everyone that thinks this way in the face of hard evidence and numbers. "I don't think so..."

 

[huskeR32]

I'm not sure why he's not listening to you, @Danoff. As a Nebraskan, I've had a front-row seat to the process. The ability to split our vote, though instituted in 1992, has only actually been used once; in 2008 Obama won the district that is largely comprised of the Omaha metro area, and was correspondingly awarded 1 of our 5 electoral votes.

Pretty much every single year since, one of the first bills introduced to the state legislature is an attempt to get rid of the split vote. If there were instead a Constitutional avenue available to them, they certainly would have pursued it by now.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I'm singularly unimpressed with the scholarship so far presented in this forum on this little issue. So, out of an abundance of prudence, I'm continuing to research the problem. Meanwhile, ponder this statement representing the 9-0 majority of the Supreme Court:

 

[Danoff]

Maybe you are right - but I don't think so. Therefore I will continue to investigate and report back. Perhaps Maine and Nebraska have been out of line, and will have to now change their ways? I have no idea, since nothing definitive has appeared in the forum to settle the matter one way or the other.

Start with a search for articles about how Maine and Nebraska are no longer allowed to split their EC vote given the supreme court ruling. When you don't find that, consider the fact that this is merely an example of why it should be clear that you're wrong. Come back and take a look at the actual opinion and the reasoning of the article I gave you (and that has been posted here) which explains exactly why you didn't find an article showing that Maine and Nebraska are henceforth forbidden from splitting their EC votes. At that point you should realize that everything you're being told is remarkably consistent, and what you're telling yourself is super inconsistent.

 

[Dotini]

Item #1(with many more to come):

Washington Secretary of State Kim Wyman’s office wrote that the ruling “confirms the state has a responsibility to ensure the electors chosen must honor their pledge to represent the outcome of the state’s popular vote.”

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattl...equire-electors-to-back-popular-vote-winners/

Citation #2:

WASHINGTON — States can require members of the Electoral College to cast their votes for the presidential candidates they had pledged to support, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled on Monday, curbing the independence of electors and limiting one potential source of uncertainty in the 2020 presidential election.

Thirty-two states and the District of Columbia have laws requiring electors to vote as they had promised, but recent court decisions had come to opposite conclusions about whether electors may disregard their pledges.

The Supreme Court resolved the dispute on Monday in a pair of cases concerning electors in Washington State and Colorado, by saying that states are entitled to remove or punish electors who changed their votes. In states without such penalties, electors remain free to change their votes.

“The Constitution’s text and the nation’s history both support allowing a state to enforce an elector’s pledge to support his party’s nominee — and the state voters’ choice — for president,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote for seven members of the court.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/06/us/politics/electoral-college-supreme-court.html

 

[Danoff]

Item #1(with many more to come):

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattl...equire-electors-to-back-popular-vote-winners/

"their pledge to represent the outcome of the state's popular vote".

The state required them to vote that way, and the supreme court says the state can do that. Try again.

 

[huskeR32]

Item #1(with many more to come):

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattl...equire-electors-to-back-popular-vote-winners/

Read the headline of your own article:

U.S. Supreme Court rules against Washington’s ‘faithless electors,’ says states can require electors to back vote winners

SecState Wyman is doing a little bit of politispeak there. The SCOTUS ruling says the states are allowed to apportion their votes as they wish. Washington has chosen to institute a winner-take-all system, and this new ruling did not take away their ability to enforce that. The "responsibility" she mentions is derived from the state's pre-existing electoral process, not from this new SCOTUS ruling.

 

[Dotini]

Apparently there are 32 states which can require the electors to vote for the state's popular vote winner and the remainder choose not to legislate such a requirement. Perhaps that explains why Nebraska and Maine are rogue actors.

 

[Joey D]

Apparently there are 32 states which can require the electors to vote for the state's popular vote winner and the remainder choose not to legislate such a requirement. Perhaps that explains why Nebraska and Maine are rogue actors!

How are they rouge? The Supreme Court essentially gave states the right to do what they see fit and Nebraska and Maine chose differently. If anything, it's a victory for states' rights that are often overlooked by the federal government.