How Trump wins Electoral College regardless of the fraudulent elections

[Snowball]

The U.S. Constitution reads:

"Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii

Supreme Court upholds Legislatures, not Popular Election results, drive selection of electors, who can be required to uphold the will of the LEGISLATURE, not the popular election:
High Court Opens Door to Electoral College Subversion
regarding "faithless" electors: "In its ruling, the high court said that states have the right to require those electors to vote in the manner mandated by their legislatures."
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/a..._to_electoral_college_subversion_143687.html#!


The Election That Could Break America (very anti-Trump article but worth reading)

December 8 is known as the “safe harbor” deadline for appointing the 538 men and women who make up the Electoral College. The electors do not meet until six days later, December 14, but each state must appoint them by the safe-harbor date to guarantee that Congress will accept their credentials. The controlling statute says that if “any controversy or contest” remains after that, then Congress will decide which electors, if any, may cast the state’s ballots for president.

We are accustomed to choosing electors by popular vote, but nothing in the Constitution says it has to be that way. Article II provides that each state shall appoint electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.” Since the late 19th century, every state has ceded the decision to its voters. Even so, the Supreme Court affirmed in Bush v. Gore that a state “can take back the power to appoint electors.” How and when a state might do so has not been tested for well over a century.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/11/what-if-trump-refuses-concede/616424/

Republicans have full control of the legislative branch in 30 states.

1) Massive Election Fraud in Democratic cities
2) Observers barred - an ILLEGAL ACTION by Dems
3) Ballot viabilities not scrutinized by Legislatures (who are appointed to run the Federal election for each state - NOT Democrat-appointed municipal clerks.
4) Recounts and Lawsuits
5) State Legislatures are a GOP majority - but not every state has to use this power.
The states with controversial "results" - are in GOP legislature hands. They CAN appoint their own Electors!
PA, WI, MI, GA, AZ, NC can all vote for Trump. Constitutionally and confirmed by SCOTUS.
6) If the controversy extends to the U.S. Congress, the HOUSE votes ONE VOTE PER STATE - Trump wins because GOP has a majority of states in Congress.

Donald J Trump is going to have a second term.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

State Legislatures are a GOP majority - but not every state has to use this power.
The states with controversial "results" - are in GOP legislature hands. They CAN appoint their own Electors!

State legislators, like all elected officials, want to keep their jobs. It's doubtful they would effectively tell the folks who put their sorry asses in office, "Fuck you and your votes. WE will decide who gets the state's electoral votes."

 

[Snowball]

State legislators, like all elected officials, want to keep their jobs. It's doubtful they would effectively tell the folks who put their sorry asses in office, "$#@! you and your votes. WE will decide who gets the state's electoral votes."

They can thoroughly inspect every single ballot before approving the popular result. They direct the election apparatus AND the Electoral College.
NOT city officials. NOT governors.

The Constitution and federal law are silent on the matter, but some states have passed laws that require their electors to vote as pledged. In July, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of these laws.

"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," Associate Justice Elena Kagan wrote in an opinion.

During the last oral argument of the court's term in May, justices on both sides of the ideological aisle expressed concern that electors could be bribed, particularly by the losing party in a close election.

"The Supreme Court made it clear that the elector is not there to vote his or her conscience. The elector is there to vote how the state dictates," said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California-Berkeley Law School. "Most states now forbid faithless electors."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...come-of-the-presidential-election/ar-BB1aHfu4

What this means:
1) Electors appointed by Legislatures are NOT "faithless". (see first post other SCOTUS ruling to that effect also.
2) SCOTUS only ruled that States "may" "allow" electors to be bound to the popular vote - not "must", "require".

 

[Snowball]

Openly talking about this on Newsmax and OANN now.

-- Electors don't even have to vote FOR or AGAINST a candidate.

--Can abstain and refuse to cast for for EITHER> denying a winner.

Result - House decides election - TRUMP WINS. 1 vote per state.

 

[rpfocus]

LOL the only fraud is that clown being passed off as a LIBERTY candidate on RPF. A ridiculous and laughable turn of events.

 

[AngryCanadian]

LOL the only fraud is that clown being passed off as a LIBERTY candidate on RPF. A ridiculous and laughable turn of events.

And Biden/Harris passed off as a Liberty candidate by some on here on RPF right? care to explain how Biden/Harris is any different? i will be waiting for that one. Unless of course you would saying that wars or supporting the Jihadists in Syria is somehow a "Liberty thing"

Many of us here have been anti war.

 

[rpfocus]

And Biden/Harris passed off as a Liberty candidate by some on here on RPF right? care to explain how Biden/Harris is any different? i will be waiting for that one. Unless of course you would saying that wars or supporting the Jihadists in Syria is somehow a "Liberty thing"

Many of us here have been anti war.

Who has passed Biden/Harris off as liberty candidates here? The Biden/Harris ticket is garbage. I simply believe Biden can act like an adult, while Trump has proven that he is unable to. I also know the Republicans will block everything Biden puts forward which is excellent. I will admit to voting for a Democrat for the first time in my life due to my disgust for Trump, but I don't think Biden/Harris are the right choice, and hinting that I think they're liberty candidates is laughable. I always vote Libertarian when possible (assuming I mostly agree with their positions), except for President because LP presidential candidates have typically been horrible, and have voted/written in Ron Paul for three elections prior to 2020.

 

[Ender]

Who has passed Biden/Harris off as liberty candidates here? The Biden/Harris ticket is garbage. I simply believe Biden can act like an adult, while Trump has proven that he is unable to. I also know the Republicans will block everything Biden puts forward which is excellent. I will admit to voting for a Democrat for the first time in my life due to my disgust for Trump, but I don't think Biden/Harris are the right choice, and hinting that I think they're liberty candidates is laughable. I always vote Libertarian when possible, except for President because LP presidential candidates have typically been horrible, and have voted/written in Ron Paul for three elections prior to 2020.

I've written in Ron Paul since 2008- which was BTW, my first voting year.

My POV on Trump has always been:

 

[axiomata]

Openly talking about this on Newsmax and OANN now.

-- Electors don't even have to vote FOR or AGAINST a candidate.

--Can abstain and refuse to cast for for EITHER> denying a winner.

Result - House decides election - TRUMP WINS. 1 vote per state.

If house gets a quorum in this scenario, yes Trump could win. But correct me if I'm wrong but the GOP does not control two thirds of the state's delegations. In which case if the Democrats refuse a vote the person selected by the Senate to be VP would become acting president on inauguration day.

 

[Snowball]

If house gets a quorum in this scenario, yes Trump could win. But correct me if I'm wrong but the GOP does not control two thirds of the state's delegations. In which case if the Democrats refuse a vote the person selected by the Senate to be VP would become acting president on inauguration day.

only a majority is required. 26.

 

[parocks]

And Biden/Harris passed off as a Liberty candidate by some on here on RPF right? care to explain how Biden/Harris is any different? i will be waiting for that one. Unless of course you would saying that wars or supporting the Jihadists in Syria is somehow a "Liberty thing"

Many of us here have been anti war.

Remember when Ron Paul ran for the REPUBLICAN nomination and then ran for the REPUBLICAN nomination and then Rand Paul ran for the REPUBLICAN nomination?

And we're not supposed to think of ourselves as a certain type of REPUBLICAN, but something else entirely, so that we "get" to have Democrats to fight with?

 

[AngryCanadian]

Remember when Ron Paul ran for the REPUBLICAN nomination and then ran for the REPUBLICAN nomination and then Rand Paul ran for the REPUBLICAN nomination?

And we're not supposed to think of ourselves as a certain type of REPUBLICAN, but something else entirely, so that we "get" to have Democrats to fight with?

And You remember the Republican establishment and media treating the Pauls the same way they have been treating Trump? calling Paul a racist and all? they have been playing the same book. Calling anyone a racist who is anti establishment and anti war. Remember how they Liberals treated Tulsi Gabbard for been anti regime change and media called her Assdists?

What was the deal with that? do these liberals on the left prefer Jihadists in Syria and Middle east to run things?

 

[Voluntarist]

Per registered decision, member has been banned for violating community standards as interpreted by TheTexan (respect his authoritah) as authorized by Brian4Liberty Ruling

May God have mercy on his atheist, police-hating, non-voting, anarchist soul.

 

[axiomata]

only a majority is required. 26.

Only 26 is required to elect but 34 is needed for a quorum to vote per the 12th Amendment. However, if only one member from a state shows up then that state is counted so I don't think Dems could block a quorum.

if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice.

 

[ResponsibleIdiot]

LOL the only fraud is that clown being passed off as a LIBERTY candidate on RPF. A ridiculous and laughable turn of events.

Maybe you lack some perspective. This election is not about the person, it's about giving a middle finger to the establishment, the media, academia, entertainment, and woke corporations. It's the Americans saying, "We don't want this chit." If Trump wins and there's more divisiveness, that's fine with me. There will be violence from the left, and all the Marxist pieces of chit will show themselves. Bring it.

 

[Occam's Banana]

State Legislatures are a GOP majority - but not every state has to use this power.
The states with controversial "results" - are in GOP legislature hands. They CAN appoint their own Electors!

State legislators, like all elected officials, want to keep their jobs. It's doubtful they would effectively tell the folks who put their sorry asses in office, "Fuck you and your votes. WE will decide who gets the state's electoral votes."

This assumes that "the folks who put their sorry asses in office" both (1) voted for GOP state legislators, and (2) voted for Biden as POTUS.

On the face of it, given clause (1), clause (2) seems dubious.

Biden supporters who did not vote for the GOP state legislators would no doubt be outraged - but by definition, they are not "the folks who put [the GOP state legislators'] sorry asses in office" ...

 

[Sonny Tufts]

This assumes that "the folks who put their sorry asses in office" both (1) voted for GOP state legislators, and (2) voted for Biden as POTUS.

On the face of it, given clause (1), clause (2) seems dubious.

Biden supporters who did not vote for the GOP state legislators would no doubt be outraged - but by definition, they are not "the folks who put [the GOP state legislators'] sorry asses in office" ...

It's possible. Going into the election the GOP controlled both legislative houses in AZ, GA, MI, NH, PA, and WI, yet Biden has more votes in these states (so far).

The important point for a GOP voter to consider is this: what if in the next election the Democrats control the legislature? Would I want them to tell me and my vote to bugger off? Now it may be that Trump voters care more about him than they do about the system -- a "the end justifies the means" outlook. But it would be wise to remember that what goes around, comes around. It's too bad the idiots in Congress haven't learned this.

Of course, the foregoing also applies to a Democrat voter if the roles were reversed.

 

[DamianTV]

And what if the Electorates themselves cast a faithless vote? Remember they are actual PEOPLE, not legal terms!

 

[Occam's Banana]

It's possible. Going into the election the GOP controlled both legislative houses in AZ, GA, MI, NH, PA, and WI, yet Biden has more votes in these states (so far).

But the motivation for GOP state legislators to override their states' slates of electors is in this case predicated upon the belief (correct or incorrect) that Biden actually has fewer votes in those states, not more - despite whatever the tallies say so far (because shenanigans).

The important point for a GOP voter to consider is this: what if in the next election the Democrats control the legislature? Would I want them to tell me and my vote to bugger off? Now it may be that Trump voters care more about him than they do about the system -- a "the end justifies the means" outlook. But it would be wise to remember that what goes around, comes around. It's too bad the idiots in Congress haven't learned this.

Of course, the foregoing also applies to a Democrat voter if the roles were reversed.

The whole political situation in the US at present is a raging dumpster fire of brinkmanship on both sides - and the Democrats in particular seem hell-bent on fanning the flames, what with all their talk of court-packing, adding states, eliminating the electoral college, etc. (Hell, some of them - with support and encouragement from "Never Trump" fellow travelers - are even already composing "proscription" lists for "cancel" campaigns, à la the Late Roman Republic).

Talk of overriding elector slates is just one symptom of today's election mess - and today's election mess is, in turn, just one symptom of a much larger, broader and more serious problem.

And I'm not sure it even makes sense to say that it is any one faction's "fault." After all, what else but a steaming hot mess could one reasonably have expected to happen in a supposedly "representative" democracy of such historically unprecedented geographic and demographic size?

 

[Anti Federalist]

And I'm not sure it even makes sense to say that it is any one faction's "fault." After all, what else but a steaming hot mess could one reasonably have expected to happen in a supposedly "representative" democracy of such historically unprecedented geographic and demographic size?

We've been Balkanized.

We were warned about it.

Now is the time to reap the whirlwind.