Despite GOP dirty tricks, Trump is losing

@no1marauder said
You really need to stop dreaming up insane scenarios where Trump retains the Presidency despite losing the election.

This is an insane presidency, isn't it? Trump already refused to commit to a peaceful transition of power, and is rushing to get a SCOTUS judge who would rule in his favor, before the election.

Always remember: you were wrong about the election before. You can be wrong again.

@vivify said
This is an insane presidency, isn't it? Trump already refused to commit to a peaceful transition of power, and is rushing to get a SCOTUS judge who would rule in his favor, before the election.

Always remember: you were wrong about the election before. You can be wrong again.

Being "wrong" about the results of an election is a bit different from assuming some ridiculous scenario is likely.

You're moving into MB type posting.

@ponderable said
This sounds really not believeable, did you contact the local authorities?

Just because I received them doesn't mean I sent them in. I cannot prove all 4 would be counted if I sent in all 4. Besides, voting more than once is voter fraud. I'm not trying to get into trouble.
Is there a law against sending multiple mail in forms to individuals? I didn't think anything of it.

@no1marauder said
Being "wrong" about the results of an election is a bit different from assuming some ridiculous scenario is likely.

You're moving into MB type posting.

Trump is actively setting up the exact situation you're claiming is "ridiculous". He's not even trying to cover up his plan to fight the election in SCOTUS; so how is it "ridiculous"?

@no1marauder said
Being "wrong" about the results of an election is a bit different from assuming some ridiculous scenario is likely.

You're moving into MB type posting.

What is wrong with you? I proved voter fraud happened. It is not a question of whether or not it happens, it does. The only question is how much.

The corporate news media used to say Trumps claims were "unfounded", which was a lie. When people like me noticed it was a lie and pointed it out for all to see, the news media changed their narrative to "widespread" fraud.

Trump never claimed there was "widespread" fraud. The corporate news media brought that term up to cover up their previous lie that no fraud existed.

@metal-brain said
What is wrong with you? I proved voter fraud happened. It is not a question of whether or not it happens, it does. The only question is how much.

The corporate news media used to say Trumps claims were "unfounded", which was a lie. When people like me noticed it was a lie and pointed it out for all to see, the news media changed their narrative to "widespread" fraud. ...[text shortened]... The corporate news media brought that term up to cover up their previous lie that no fraud existed.

you did what? "prove" anything? You claimed to have received four balots but there is Nothing we can do to test that. You failed to alarm the authorities (which you should have done if you wanted to actively secure a safe Ballot), so what exactly do you want?

@vivify said
Trump is actively setting up the exact situation you're claiming is "ridiculous". He's not even trying to cover up his plan to fight the election in SCOTUS; so how is it "ridiculous"?

The SCOTUS isn't going to declare all mailed in ballots illegal or some such as you seem to think is possible.

True, in 2000 they intervened to stop all counting in one State in one of the worst decisions in their history, but that's quite different from the alarmist scenarios you are musing about. What the Donald wants courts to do and what they actually do is completely different as has been shown numerous times during his administration.

I do not think the election is going to be anywhere near close enough for anything the SCOTUS could do to matter anyway. They have already closed one possible Trump strategy by upholding State laws that require electors to vote for the candidate they are pledged to. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-465_i425.pdf

@metal-brain said
What is wrong with you? I proved voter fraud happened. It is not a question of whether or not it happens, it does. The only question is how much.

The corporate news media used to say Trumps claims were "unfounded", which was a lie. When people like me noticed it was a lie and pointed it out for all to see, the news media changed their narrative to "widespread" fraud. ...[text shortened]... The corporate news media brought that term up to cover up their previous lie that no fraud existed.

You didn't prove anything even if your story is true:

"It is common for multiple ballot request applications to be sent out ahead of the election and by more than just the local election office."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/09/11/fact-check-you-vote-once-even-if-you-receive-multiple-ballot-applications/5750080002/

@metal-brain said
What is wrong with you? I proved voter fraud happened. It is not a question of whether or not it happens, it does. The only question is how much.

The corporate news media used to say Trumps claims were "unfounded", which was a lie. When people like me noticed it was a lie and pointed it out for all to see, the news media changed their narrative to "widespread" fraud. ...[text shortened]... The corporate news media brought that term up to cover up their previous lie that no fraud existed.

Anecdotes don't prove anything.

Neither do lies. I know that's a shocker to you, but there it is.

@no1marauder said
True, in 2000 they intervened to stop all counting in one State in one of the worst decisions in their history, but that's quite different from the alarmist scenarios you are musing about.

Not all. This is the exact type of scenario Trump is actively (and openly) trying to engineer.

They have already closed one possible Trump strategy by upholding State laws that require electors to vote for the candidate they are pledged to.

http://archive.fairvote.org/?page=967

Only 29 states have such laws. Among those that do not? New York, Georgia and Illinois. These states are in the top ten for most electoral votes, and most importantly, are also blue states. Those 3 blue states could choose Trump even their voters pick otherwise, easily tipping the election toward Trump.

It's pure arrogance to assume this will be a normal and fair election, especially given what Republicans have already been openly scheming to do, both legally and illegally.

@vivify said
Not all. This is the exact type of scenario Trump is actively (and openly) trying to engineer.

They have already closed one possible Trump strategy by upholding State laws that require electors to vote for the candidate they are pledged to.

http://archive.fairvote.org/?page=967

Only 29 states have such laws. Among those that do not? New York, Georgia and Il ...[text shortened]... pecially given what Republicans have already been openly scheming to do, both legally and illegally.

LMAO! You think the New York State and Illinois legislatures would override the People's votes for a Democratic Presidential candidate?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Legislature
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois_General_Assembly

This is what I mean by ridiculous scenarios you have conjured up.

Georgia does have a Republican majority legislature, but no State has ever overriden a clear popular vote in a Presidential election. And if Trump loses Georgia, he's almost certain to have lost the election anyway.

@no1marauder said
Georgia does have a Republican majority legislature, but no State has ever overriden a clear popular vote in a Presidential election. And if Trump loses Georgia, he's almost certain to have lost the election anyway.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/10/12/changing-population-turns-georgia-into-trump-biden-battleground

While Republican Donald Trump glided to victory in Georgia four years ago, support for Biden has rapidly increased in the weeks before Election Day. a Quinnipiac University Poll of likely Georgia voters conducted in late September, prior to the president’s COVID-19 diagnosis, found Biden leading Trump by three percentage points, just outside the survey’s margin of error. In the poll, 50 percent of voters said they would support Biden and 47 percent voiced an intention to vote for Trump.

So now we have a realistic scenario of a Republican-controlled state, that hasn't bound it's electors to adhere to it's voters, that may vote for Biden.

As for "no state" ever overriding the popular vote, no Senate ever blocked a sitting president from choosing a SCOTUS judge, prior to McConnel's Senate. Just last year, Republicans in Oregon literally ran away, out of state, in order to block a Democrat climate-change bill.

If you think it's "Ridiculous" that Republicans won't do the same in a key state that even you admit can spell loss for Trump, you're being arrogant and willingly blind.

@vivify said
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/10/12/changing-population-turns-georgia-into-trump-biden-battleground

[b]While Republican Donald Trump glided to victory in Georgia four years ago, support for Biden has rapidly increased in the weeks before Election Day. a Quinnipiac University Poll of likely Georgia voters conducted in late September, prior to the president’s COVID-19 ...[text shortened]... a key state that even you admit can spell loss for Trump, you're being arrogant and willingly blind.

No, it's not a "realistic scenario"; it's a wildly improbable one that probably isn't even legal. https://campaignlegal.org/update/can-state-legislature-overturn-presidential-election-results

@no1marauder said
No, it's not a "realistic scenario"; it's a wildly improbable one that probably isn't even legal.

https://history.house.gov/Institution/Electoral-College/Electoral-College/

There has been one faithless elector in each of the following elections: 1948, 1956, 1960, 1968, 1972, 1976, and 1988. A blank ballot was cast in 2000. In 2016, seven electors broke with their state on the presidential ballot and six did so on the vice presidential ballot.

It is legal, and it has happened multiple times before, therefore making it most definitely "realistic".

@vivify said
https://history.house.gov/Institution/Electoral-College/Electoral-College/

There has been one faithless elector in each of the following elections: 1948, 1956, 1960, 1968, 1972, 1976, and 1988. A blank ballot was cast in 2000. In 2016, seven electors broke with their state on the presidential ballot and six did so on the vice presidential ballot.

It is legal, and it has happened multiple times before, therefore making it most definitely "realistic".

No, "it" a State legislature overriding a popular vote determination has never happened.

The ability of "faithless electors" to cast votes at variance with the popular vote has been severely limited by the SCOTUS decision this year already mentioned.