While Trump fumes, Joe gets to work

@metal-brain said
I said POTUS recounts, not any recount.
Are you attempting to mislead people here?

Okay... how many potus recounts were there and how many overturned the initial result.

Well, since 2000, there have been 27 recounts (in any state-wide election) and only three... the three I mentioned... overturned the initial result. And none of the flipping were in a potus election.

So there you go.
You are the person attempting to mislead people. I give you facts and you just can’t handle them.

@metal-brain said
Must I walk you through it like you are a child?
Here is an excerpt from the link below:

"First things first, it’s actually the Electoral College — and not the media or even the popular vote like many folks (both Americans and especially foreigners) wrongly believe — which legally decides the presidency as per the Constitution. Each state’s electors are expected — but ...[text shortened]... Define "apparent". Everyone has their different interpretation of what apparent is, and you know it.

Legislators and judges aren't Humpty Dumpty; they don't insist that words can have any meaning a person desires.

"Apparent" in this case was obviously used to mandate a transition period before the Electors voted i.e. as soon as the winner was clear. The winner here is clear and the GSA chief is violating the statute.

@metal-brain said
Must I walk you through it like you are a child?
Here is an excerpt from the link below:

"First things first, it’s actually the Electoral College — and not the media or even the popular vote like many folks (both Americans and especially foreigners) wrongly believe — which legally decides the presidency as per the Constitution. Each state’s electors are expected — but ...[text shortened]... Define "apparent". Everyone has their different interpretation of what apparent is, and you know it.

Why do you think Congress used the term "apparent winner"? You do realize they are aware of when the Electors meet since Congress is the ones who set that date. Yet, they did not rely on it for the purposes of the Presidential Transition Act.

It looks like the republicant party is in full blown melt-down.

Could my week get any better?

@shavixmir said
Okay... how many potus recounts were there and how many overturned the initial result.

Well, since 2000, there have been 27 recounts (in any state-wide election) and only three... the three I mentioned... overturned the initial result. And none of the flipping were in a potus election.

So there you go.
You are the person attempting to mislead people. I give you facts and you just can’t handle them.

No, I asked how many in a POTUS election and you gave none.

I don't expect election fraud when I vote for my township clerk. I expect it with powerful positions like the presidency of the USA. You do too, you just won't admit it.

@no1marauder said
Legislators and judges aren't Humpty Dumpty; they don't insist that words can have any meaning a person desires.

"Apparent" in this case was obviously used to mandate a transition period before the Electors voted i.e. as soon as the winner was clear. The winner here is clear and the GSA chief is violating the statute.

Again, what do the legislators have to do with it? You keep failing to answer that simple question. It is as if you are making up nonsense to intentionally obfuscate.

Saying the winner is clear without explaining why is all you are doing. "Apparent" is far from an apparent term in this context. Define apparent.

The electors meet to vote for POTUS. That has not happened yet. Even here in my state of Michigan Biden has not received election certification. That takes place later this month and a local TV news station reported that Biden is not elected until MI certifies it. This is why Trump took legal action to prevent it. Biden has not received Michigan's electoral delegates yet.

After threatening to take legal action against the GSA, Biden now says it isn't important. LOL!!!!!

People generally don't threaten legal action over things they don't think are important. If the GSA chief is violating the statute why doesn't he follow through with his threat to make him comply with the statute? He can't, that is why.

Biden technically is NOT the president elect. That will not happen until he receives the electoral delegates. His presidency is about as legitimate as Venezuela's Guido. He is actually a very good comparison. We were told Guido was the legitimate president of Venezuela by every puppet nation of the empire, but who is in control of Venezuela? Not Guido.

Assertions are not proof. How many nations that did not recognize Guido as Venezuela's president now recognize Biden as the president elect?

@metal-brain said
Again, what do the legislators have to do with it? You keep failing to answer that simple question. It is as if you are making up nonsense to intentionally obfuscate.

Saying the winner is clear without explaining why is all you are doing. "Apparent" is far from an apparent term in this context. Define apparent.

The electors meet to vote for POTUS. That has not happ ...[text shortened]... ns that did not recognize Guido as Venezuela's president now recognize Biden as the president elect?

The legislators wrote the law; that's what they have to do with it. And the Presidential Transition Act requires the GSA to do certain things once the winner of the Presidential election is "apparent". It does not say the winner isn't "apparent" until the Electors cast their vote as you weirdly keep insisting; if that was the result Congress would have wanted they would have said so.

And the fact that Biden may not chose a litigation strategy doesn't change that one bit; there are two probable reasons he hasn't A) It would probably take longer than the Electors meeting anyway and/or B) He figures the GSA will soon reverse its illegal decision.

Your ridiculous comparison to Venezuela isn't really worth responding to BUT unlike Guido, Biden won an election. And anyway this discussion has only to do with the GSA's refusal to comply with the Presidential Transition Act - no one is claiming that Joe Biden is the actual President now.

@no1marauder said
The legislators wrote the law; that's what they have to do with it. And the Presidential Transition Act requires the GSA to do certain things once the winner of the Presidential election is "apparent". It does not say the winner isn't "apparent" until the Electors cast their vote as you weirdly keep insisting; if that was the result Congress would have wanted they would h ...[text shortened]... Presidential Transition Act - no one is claiming that Joe Biden is the actual President now.

"The legislators wrote the law"

What legislators?

The Presidential Transition Act does not say the winner isn't "apparent" in any circumstance. Apparent doesn't mean anything but to the individual opinion of what apparent is. You are simply being ridiculous.

"There are two probable reasons he hasn't A) It would probably take longer than the Electors meeting anyway and/or B) He figures the GSA will soon reverse its illegal decision."

What is your source of information? Biden threatened legal action, so if it was "A" it was clearly a foolish bluff. If you really think it was "B" it does not make any sense. Sen. James Lankford cannot do it, so why do you think anyone who claims they can "push" the GSA into anything has any legal ground to do so?

I was right. It was a bluff, and a stupid one.

@no1marauder said
Why do you think Congress used the term "apparent winner"? You do realize they are aware of when the Electors meet since Congress is the ones who set that date. Yet, they did not rely on it for the purposes of the Presidential Transition Act.

https://nationalfile.com/intel-officials-confirm-biden-isnt-getting-national-security-info-yet-because-he-isnt-potus/

@Metal-Brain
Why is it then, that ALL former POTUS elects got that information AND the money to start the transition?

Why did Obama WELCOME Trump to the WH, showing him around, ready and willing to pass the torch PEACEFULLY, unlike your assswipe Trump who was absent for over a week and today gave a briefing dissing New York and Cuomo.

Yep, REAL presidential.

He is an IDIOT
and YOU are his TROLLMASTER

@sonhouse said
@Metal-Brain
Why is it then, that ALL former POTUS elects got that information AND the money to start the transition?

Why did Obama WELCOME Trump to the WH, showing him around, ready and willing to pass the torch PEACEFULLY, unlike your assswipe Trump who was absent for over a week and today gave a briefing dissing New York and Cuomo.

Yep, REAL presidential.

He is an IDIOT
and YOU are his TROLLMASTER

Because they were actual president elects, Biden is not yet. All the other POTUS candidates conceded and the POTUS elect got that information AND the money to start the transition.

It is worth noting that Al Gore did not get information AND the money to start the transition either. That is because Bush did not concede.

Are you starting to notice NOT conceding changes everything? You act as if not conceding happens every election cycle. You cannot logically compare this to an uncontested election. Why are you doing that?

Biden threatened to take legal action to get the GSA to provide information AND the money to start the transition. It was a bluff. Now he claims it is not important....lol!

Do people typically make threats over stuff that is not important? He bluffed and got called on it. Biden has no legal right to it because he is not the POTUS elect yet. If he was an actual president elect he would already have it.

@no1marauder said
Unsurprisingly, you don't know what you are talking about. The Presidential Transition Act of 1963 (Public Law 88-277) provides:

"The terms "President-elect" and "Vice-President-elect" as used in this Act shall mean such persons as are the apparent successful candidates for the office of President and Vice President, respectively, as ascertained by the Administr ...[text shortened]... heir official duties[/b] or correct an abuse of discretion. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/mandamus

Does the act outline any forms of redress the President-Elect may have in securing the transition resources, in case of petulance on the part of the outgoing administration?

@metal-brain said
"The legislators wrote the law"

What legislators?

The Presidential Transition Act does not say the winner isn't "apparent" in any circumstance. Apparent doesn't mean anything but to the individual opinion of what apparent is. You are simply being ridiculous.

"There are two probable reasons he hasn't A) It would probably take longer than the Electors meeting any ...[text shortened]... GSA into anything has any legal ground to do so?

I was right. It was a bluff, and a stupid one.

MB: "Apparent doesn't mean anything but to the individual opinion of what apparent is."

You truly are incredibly ignorant of how laws work.

The loser not conceding has absolutely nothing to do with the provisions of the law. Why you think it is important is beyond me.

" Since 1963, GSA has ascertained the President-Elect and Vice President-Elect “within hours or a day of media projections,
and weeks before the results were made official by the Electoral College,”

https://www.commoncause.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/2020.11.10-GSA-Letter-FINAL.pdf

As already pointed out, this election is no closer than the one in 2016 with the winning President-Elect being projected to get the same amount of Electoral Votes and having bigger leads in the important "swing" States. In 2016:

"In 2016, the decision by the GSA acting administrator to begin the transition process occurred on November 9, the day after the election."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gsa-general-services-administration-presidential-transition/

@suzianne said
Does the act outline any forms of redress the President-Elect may have in securing the transition resources, in case of petulance on the part of the outgoing administration?

Nevermind, I just saw the bit at the end about the writ of mandamus.