2020 US Election - Let The Games Begin!

Trump On Election Results: ‘We Will Be Going To The U.S. Supreme Court’​

“So our goal now is to ensure the integrity for the good of this nation, this is a very big moment. This is a major fraud on our nation. We want the law to be used in the proper manner,” Trump continued. “So we will be going to the U.S. Supreme Court. We want all voting to stop. We don’t want them to find any ballots at 4 o’clock in the morning and add them to the list. OK? It’s a very sad, it’s a very sad moment.”
Click to expand...
The article includes a transcript of the President's remarks in the news conference.

The various aspects of sanitation work – Waste Management Blog

www.tathasta.com
 
SOTTREADER said:
When the election ends up in court, who's the president whilst its all being decided?
Click to expand...
The 2000 Bush vs Gore "selection" brought out all the past contested Presidential elections with no clear winner process going way back into past decades. Sorry, I don't remember those facts now, but they will probably be resurfacing in the news any day now. Wonder if those "facts" will be the same as they were in 2000 . . . At any rate, I vaguely remember that the contest over who won could/did go on for months for one or more of those past elections.

From wiki:
In the United States, a contingent election is the procedure used to elect the President or Vice President in the event that no candidate for one or both of these offices wins an absolute majority of votes in the Electoral College. A presidential contingent election is decided by a vote of the United States House of Representatives, while a vice-presidential contingent election is decided by a vote of the United States Senate. During a contingent election, each state's House delegation casts one en bloc vote to determine the president, rather than a vote from each representative. Senators, on the other hand, cast votes individually for vice president.

The contingent election process was first established in Article Two, Section 1, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution. It was subsequently modified by the 12th Amendment in 1804. Under the revised format, the House chooses one of the three candidates who received the most electoral votes, while the Senate chooses one of the two candidates who received the most electoral votes. The phrase "contingent election" is not found in the text of the Constitution itself, but has been used to describe this procedure since at least 1823.[1]

Contingent elections have occurred only three times in American history: in 1801, 1825, and 1837. In 1800, Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr, the presidential and vice-presidential nominees on the ticket of the Democratic-Republican party, received the same number of electoral votes. Under the procedures in place at the time, this necessitated a contingent election the following year to decide which would be President and which Vice President. In 1824, the Electoral College was split between four candidates, with Andrew Jackson losing the subsequent contingent election to John Quincy Adams, despite having won a plurality of both the popular and electoral vote. In 1836, faithless electors in Virginia refused to vote for Martin Van Buren's vice-presidential nominee Richard Mentor Johnson, denying him a majority of the electoral vote and forcing the Senate to elect him in a contingent election.

All three contingent elections in the nineteenth century were held by the outgoing Congress, since, at the time, congressional terms ended/began on the same day as presidential terms. In 1933, the 20th Amendment stipulated that the term of the incoming congress should start before that of the incoming President, and that it should be the incoming congress which would choose the President in any future contingent election.
Click to expand...

Congress Decides: 1877​

The contested 1876 presidential election between Republican Rutherford B. Hayes of Ohio and Democrat Samuel J. Tilden of New York was the last to require congressional intervention. Tilden won the popular vote and the electoral count. But Republicans challenged the results in three Southern states, which submitted certificates of election for both candidates. While the Constitution requires the House and Senate to formally count the certificates of election in joint session, it is silent on what Congress should do to resolve disputes. In January 1877, Congress established the Federal Electoral Commission to investigate the disputed Electoral College ballots. The bipartisan commission, which included Representatives, Senators, and Supreme Court Justices, voted along party lines to award all the contested ballots to Hayes—securing the presidency for him by a single electoral vote. The Commission’s controversial results did not spark the violence in the post-Civil War South that some had feared largely because Republicans had struck a compromise with Southern Democrats to remove federal soldiers from the South and end Reconstruction in the event of a Hayes victory.

Click to expand...
On November 8, 2000, the Florida Division of Elections reported that Bush won with 48.8% of the vote in Florida, a margin of victory of 1,784 votes. The margin of victory was less than 0.5% of the votes cast, so a statutorily-mandated automatic machine recount occurred.

On December 12, 2000, the Supreme Court ended a Florida vote recount in the presidential election contest between George W. Bush and Al Gore. The Court’s decision remains debated today.

On November 8, 2000, a preliminary vote tally in Florida showed Bush leading Gore by about 1,700 votes in the state. With its 25 electoral votes up for grabs, the winner in Florida would become the next President of the United States.

The initial vote tally was so close in Florida, with a less than 0.5 percent difference, that Florida’s state laws triggered an automatic machine recount. The first recount left Bush with just a 317-vote margin over Gore. Gore asked for a manual recount in four counties as allowed under Florida’s law. Over the next weeks, Democrats and state officials fought over deadlines related to the recount and the need for deadline extensions.

On November 26, 2000, Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris certified that Bush had won the election by a 537-vote margin. Gore then sued Harris because all of the recounts had not been completed when she certified the results. On December 8, 2000, the Florida Supreme Court sided with Gore, ordering that all statewide “undervote” ballots, or punch-card ballots that had been cast but not registered because of a problem called a “hanging chad,” needed to be recounted.

Bush immediately appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which ordered the recount halted on December 9, 2000 until it could hear arguments in the case. The Justices faced a legal deadline: Under federal law (3 U.S. Code § 5) known as the safe harbor provision, a state must determine its electors six days before the Electoral College members meet in person. In 2000, that deadline was December 12 and the arguments would be held on December 11, giving the Court one day to reach a decision.

On December 12, 2000, the divided Court issued an unsigned per curium main decision, with concurrences and dissents written by specific justices.

In the first part of the decision, seven justices (including liberals Stephen Breyer and David Souter) agreed with Bush that his Equal Protection rights were violated because there was no existing legal standard to recount the punch-card ballots.

Another part of the decision, a 5-4 vote along ideological lines, said that any solution to the recount problem couldn’t be put in place by December 12, the safe-harbor deadline. The Florida Supreme Court of Florida, the majority said, indicated that the Florida state legislature wanted Florida’s electors to “participat[e] fully in the federal electoral process” by honoring the December 12 safe-harbor deadline.

The Supreme Court decision, in total, went against the Florida Supreme Court, remanding the case back to it for further action. But since the safe-harbor deadline was passed, Bush remained as the certified winner in Florida, and Gore conceded the next day.

On this day, Bush v. Gore settles 2000 presidential race | Constitution Center

On December 12, 2000, the Supreme Court ended a Florida vote recount in the presidential election contest between George W. Bush and Al Gore. The Court’s decision remains debated today.
constitutioncenter.org
Click to expand...
I still remember how shocked and outraged I was over this - I couldn't believe the public just went along with it without any protest whatsoever (unless it was completely MSM censored):
The Brooks Brothers riot was a demonstration at a meeting of election canvassers in Miami-Dade County, Florida, on November 22, 2000, during a recount of votes made during the 2000 United States presidential election, with the goal of shutting down the recount. Many of the demonstrators were paid Republican operatives.

Click to expand...
Looking back in hindsight, we now know it's all political theatre. The Secret Government controls both sides - at least until Trump came along, not that he's a new JFK (he isn't), but he's not a swamp rat either. I believe I read that he's been surprised about a lot of things since becoming prez and may be viewing it all a lot differently than when he first decided to run for office. Probably pretty appalled at the level of evil involved, especially in regards to child/human trafficking. The fact that he's a nationalist rather than a globalist is the key.

More 2000 insights here i.e. what really happened:
theintercept.com

Democrats Should Remember Al Gore Won Florida in 2000 — but Lost the Presidency With a Pre-emptive Surrender

Democrats should remember that Al Gore won Florida in 2000 — but lost the presidency with a pre-emptive surrender.
theintercept.com theintercept.com
 
New York Post:

Error in data used by news outlets wrongly said 98% of ballots counted in Arizona https://trib.al/3bu3wt6

"Edison data is used by the National Election Pool of TV outlets including ABC News, CBS News, CNN and NBC News. The Post uses the data via Reuters for an election results map."

"In a defiant morning call with reporters, Trump campaign manager Bill Stepien insisted that in Arizona, “based on the math that we have been seeing as these late-arriving ballots are counted, anywhere from two-thirds to 70 percent of these votes are coming to the president, that math adds up to a margin of around 30,000 in the president’s favor.”
 
dredger said:
Thanks to the french "Les Deqodeurs", interesting tweet & video :
https://twitter.com/x/status/1324085076515323905
In summary : "video recorded" fraud ... in favor of ...guess who ! :lol:
Click to expand...

My mum says the same tactics they've been employing in poor countries are now getting deployed by them in their own country.

She has no sympathy.

She's like this should be a wake up call.
 
SOTTREADER said:
I want Trump to win, but I know he's up against some absolute bast*rds.

Can we have a miracle from the universe tonight? Pretty please.... 🙏

I'm not even American... Why do I feel so emotionally invested! 🥺
Click to expand...

It's an understandable. Pretty much anything happening in USA has worldwide repercusions. It's a show that is available to everyone. Gotta sit back and grab the best popcorn you can find.
 
Heather said:
Let's keep in mind, Trump is a numbers man. He's all over it.

In case you missed last night's news conference which happened at 2:30 in the morning:

Click to expand...

In every setback Trump faces he seems to become stronger because of it. That's something to admire. The guy never gives up. If he think there is a chance, then he will pursue it to his last breath. He is a real warrior.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom