Will Trump be Reelected via Electoral College or via 12th Amendment ?

[Into the Night]

lol totally ignorant of the process, from the kraken asshattery to this

Yes. You are totally ignorant of the process. That's because you deny the Constitution.

 

[Into the Night]

Well, you still can contribute and I urge to send as much money as you possibly can. Got a car? Sell it and send it to Trump. Sell your trailer home, too. Send the money to Trump.

How can you call yourself a Trump supporter if you haven't sent him money? There's no voter fraud. You're the fraud. Send him all your money now if you want him to help him execute his coup.

View attachment 18468

https://secure.winred.com/djt/election-defense-fund-v2?location=djtwebredbar?utm_medium=web&utm_source=djt_web&utm_content=redbar&_ga=2.84095326.635731616.1609001801-1048565752.1609001801

There is voter fraud. There is also election fraud.

 

[Joe Capitalist]

There is voter fraud. There is also election fraud.

If you believe that, then send him your money. Mail him your next paycheck. How's can you say you support him. Go write your check now

 

[Into the Night]

Nothing deprives the states of their power.

No one is depriving States of their power.

The plenary power was used by each state when state law and constitution established how state electors would be chosen by popular vote,

You are ignoring the Constitution of the United States.

how the actual electors would be selected,

Only the legislatures of each State have that power. See the Constitution of the United States.

whether the electors are bound to support the candidate to which they are pledged and any possible penalty.

The electoral college is a free voting body. It is unconstitutional to force any of them to vote a particular way. See the Constitution of the United States.

That process has been completed using the plenary power of each state legislature under the U. S. Constitution.

Nope. Seven States have so far filed Contested.

They do not vote again as electors have already been selected and cast their electoral vote on December 14.

Nope. Electors have not yet been selected by at last seven States. The electoral college votes are taken on Jan 6th.

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors,"
"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."

So?

I did not say any laws supersede the Constitution.

Yes you did. You deny both the law, the Constitution, and the various State laws and constitutions.
...deleted irrelevant material...

On no occasion did the state legislatures vote again to choose different electors than those already cast.

Irrelevant. They have the power to do so all the way to Jan 6th, when the vote is taken.

If there is a dispute over the votes in a state that state has until six days before its electors meet to settle the issue. These six days are called the "safe harbor."

Irrelevant.

"The six-day period established in law has been referred to as the “Safe Harbor” requirement, in that electoral vote results certified by that date are considered to be conclusively cast.See, e.g., Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 110-11 (2000)

Irrelevant. States can choose their electors all the way up to Jan 6th.

We are still waiting for you to show us an example of when state legislatures voted after the electoral votes were cast in each state capitol.

State legislatures do not case electoral votes.

 

[Nordberg]

You cannot foretell the future.

Apparently, he can.

 

[Concart]

The sock steps in to deflect fire.

 

[Concart]

Ok. You can explain why no state chose a different set of electors than those it chose on December 14.

My answer would be because (1) it did not want to override the electors and popular vote; and (2) it couldn't even if it wanted to.

Exactly. In a couple of states, the Republicans got together and had their super secret non-binding vote for a different slate of electors. Of course that has no legal backing. but it was kinda cute how they sucked up to Trump and the Trumptards.

 

[Flash]

Lie. You deny the Constitution. You have never read it.

I obviously read it better than you did. You said the 12th Amendment contained provisions for objections when Congress meets to count the electoral votes on January 6; of course, you never posted those provisions because they don't exist.

The electoral college is not a process.

There are several processes required for the electoral college to do its job; without them it would be useless.

 

[Flash]

Exactly. In a couple of states, the Republicans got together and had their super secret non-binding vote for a different slate of electors. Of course that has no legal backing. but it was kinda cute how they sucked up to Trump and the Trumptards.

Those guys just need something to hold on to.

 

[Into the Night]

If you believe that, then send him your money. Mail him your next paycheck. How's can you say you support him. Go write your check now

No need.

 

[Into the Night]

Apparently, he can.

You cannot foretell the future either.

 

[Into the Night]

The sock steps in to deflect fire.

YALSA

 

[Into the Night]

Exactly. In a couple of states, the Republicans got together and had their super secret non-binding vote for a different slate of electors. Of course that has no legal backing. but it was kinda cute how they sucked up to Trump and the Trumptards.

It has legal backing. It is seven States.

 

[Into the Night]

I obviously read it better than you did.

You haven't read it.

You said the 12th Amendment contained provisions for objections when Congress meets to count the electoral votes on January 6;

You don't read my posts either. I never said this.

of course, you never posted those provisions because they don't exist.

?????? You are being irrational. Which is it, dude?

There are several processes required for the electoral college to do its job; without them it would be useless.

The electoral college is not a process.

 

[Into the Night]

Those guys just need something to hold on to.

Denial of history. Denial of the Constitution of the United States. Denial of evidence. Denial of constitutions of various States. Denial of current federal and State laws.

 

[IBDaMann]

Are you certain enough about this that you'd bet your membership on this forum

you are the sixth cowardly leftist who has made this all about "ever posting at this site again." What a sniveling coward you must be.

No, I absolutely have no desire for you to leave this site because I want to be able to continue mocking the schitt out of you whenever you post. What motivation would I ever have for hoping my source of amusement would just leave, never to return?

No, the terms of the bet are whoever loses must stay! I thoroughly enjoy toying with you.

If Congress ratifies the EC and Biden is set to be inaugurated on the 20th,

The bet revolves around the 306-232 "already determined result of the vote that already happened". If the result of the Jan 6th ... event ... whatever you want to call it ... results in something other than an uncontested 306-232 Electoral College declaration of Joe Biden as President, because it has "already happened" and the January 6th declaration is "just a formality" then I win the bet because I am asserting that the vote has NOT already happened and will take place on Jan 6th and that it will have a different outcome than the "certified 306-232" that leftists claim 100% certainly "already happened."

... will you and your socks resign from JPP forever?

Of course, when I win, I expect you to cancel your socks ThatOwlWoman, Guno, Concart, Flash, Phantasmal and Nordberg.


.

 

[IBDaMann]

I'm holding a royal flush pal. A steaming plate of crow. You will choke on it. Don't expect me to save you, traitor.

So that's a "yes" regarding the large four-topping pizza of choice?

 

[IBDaMann]

No, I am talking about anytime in history that

Your question is bogus because it implies that something cannot happen for the first time. Why do I somehow need to provide an historical example for something that will happen for the first time?

The constitutional requirement that electors vote for president and vice president by a certain date ...

I am going to ignore you until you first point me to the text in the Constitution that says that no State legislature gets to change its mind prior to January 6th, even if its electors go through the required steps as outlined in the 12th Amendment. I need you to first show me where the Constitution curtails the State legislature's plenary power prior to January 6th.

Then we can proceed.

January 6th will not result in a 306-232 Electoral college result. You are wrong. You are wrong because the vote has not yet happened and all State legislatures still hold their plenary power in this vote.

 

[IBDaMann]

Ok. You can explain why no state chose a different set of electors than those it chose on December 14.

My answer would be because (1) it did not want to override the electors and popular vote; and (2) it couldn't even if it wanted to.

When the January 6th result differs from the "certified" December 14th result of 306-232, how are you going to explain it? How does something that already happened in the past somehow become different, like it didn't happen until some time in the future?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

you are the sixth cowardly leftist who has made this all about "ever posting at this site again." What a sniveling coward you must be. ....

Translation: No bet. I know I'd lose.

Of course you'd lose. You may be crazy but you aren't that fucking crazy. LOL