Was 2020 election stolen or not?

[Nordberg]

The electoral vote was certified state after state and sealed. Those documents were taken to the capitol for ceremonial verification by the joint house. The vote was known and determined before 1-6.
Trump tried to steal it and he has not completely stopped. That is the theft that should be talked about.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
1. Correct.

2. You're not making sense. The tally at the end of the day shows Trump winning the electoral college vote...and that by law put him in the White House. He was pissed that people pointed out he lost the popular vote, and had his people search for voter fraud or anything that would flip those results. He found nothing of the sort. this is part of the debate as to why the electoral system should be eliminated https://ronconte.com/2016/11/17/elec...ates-lose-out/

3. Incorrect. Please note: https://dqydj.com/how-many-faithless-electors-2016/

The faithless electors in 2016 did not give Trump the presidency. Trump had 304 electoral votes and Hillary 224. He won by 77 electoral votes. The 5 electoral votes that did not vote for Clinton did not give Trump the victory.

You are making the mistaken assumption that electors who did not vote for the popular vote winner in their state caused Trump to win. Not so. Even in those 5 faithless electors who did not vote for Clinton had voted for her Trump would have still won by 72 electoral votes.

Faithless electors have never affected the election results even in those elections in which the popular vote winner did not win the electoral college.

So, if those who want to get rid of the electoral college think election results don't come out right because some electors don't vote as they should, they don't understand how the system works.

I don't quite get your attempt to somehow what, split a hair, emphasize a moot point and attach it to some personal take on thing? Or maybe you don't understand the point of the link? I'll explain: the link demonstrates an essential "flaw" in our election system....that is the inability to guarantee that the electoral voters truly represent what their state tally's show. That is the point....and no matter how much statistical dancing is done, the "margins" still point to an "estimated" shift. There shouldn't be any. You shouldn't have a 2% lead in the popular only to be superceded by a comparative electoral vote.

And remember, there were about 5 electoral votes that went for neither candidate. https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/2016

So yes, the "faithless" do effect an outcome....which takes the voting right of the majority of the people and throws it out the window for the rights of a relatively select few. That is a problem for many, and thus the valid point I put forth in this thread's debate.

 

[Flash]

So yes, the "faithless" do effect an outcome....which takes the voting right of the majority of the people and throws it out the window for the rights of a relatively select few. That is a problem for many, and thus the valid point I put forth in this thread's debate.

Completely untrue. All of a state's electoral votes usually go to the candidate winning a plurality of the popular vote. When some electors did not go to the popular vote winner it never affected the outcome of any election. The 5 electoral votes that did not go to Trump or Clinton would not have changed the electoral results since Trump won by 77 electoral votes.

In those 5 elections that the popular vote winner did not win the electoral vote, it was not because some electors did not vote for the popular vote winner in their state.

That is not splitting hairs or a moot point because you are trying to claim just the opposite.

The "flaw" is not in the way electors vote but the make-up of the college itself. It works exactly the way it is supposed to work but is a flaw to some because they want the popular vote winner to become president.

In the original plan the electors were expected to vote for the person they thought would make the best president. They were not supposed to vote for the popular vote winner because there was/is no popular vote in the Constitution. They would not choose among candidates running for office because that was not anticipated.

In 2000 there were no faithless electors (one abstained) but the popular vote winner (Gore) did not win the electoral college.

 

[Taichiliberal]

False authority fallacy. The Constitution of the United States, and ONLY the Constitution of the United States is the authoritative reference of the Constitution of the United States.

No. See the Constitution of the United States.

The Constitution isn't 'broken'. The President is not elected by popular vote.

False authority fallacy. Time Magazine is not the authoritative reference of the Constitution of the United States.

You don't recognize the Constitution of the United States nor any State constitution.

False authority fallacy. A blog is not the authoritative reference of the Constitution of the United States.

Insult fallacies.

False authority fallacy. Fox News is not the authoritative reference of the Constitution of the United States. Congress is not authorized to choose the electors for any State, only the electors for the District of Columbia.

Already did. RQAA.

Insult fallacies. Bigotry. What voter suppression tactics? It's not that hard to get ID.

SCOTUS does not have authority to change the Constitution of the United States.

Insult fallacies. Assumption of victory fallacy. Buzzword fallacies. Vacuous argument fallacy. Attempted proof by void. Attempted proof by Holy Link.

And as the reader can see, ITN has deteriorated to his usual list of innocuous word combinations that is suppose to be a valid, defined and detailed retort to what essentially he has none. Then he just repeats already debated and disproved points.

ITN just dismisses what he can't logically and factually disprove and parrots on...wasting space and time. Pity no one told him that does NOT make his argument valid. But the man he sees in the mirror tells hm all is good, so he carrys on. The chronology of the posts will always be his foil.

 

[Matt Dillon]

And as the reader can see, ITN has deteriorated to his usual list of innocuous word combinations that is suppose to be a valid, defined and detailed retort to what essentially he has none. Then he just repeats already debated and disproved points.

ITN just dismisses what he can't logically and factually disprove and parrots on...wasting space and time. Pity no one told him that does NOT make his argument valid. But the man he sees in the mirror tells hm all is good, so he carrys on. The chronology of the posts will always be his foil.

Hey listen here, fucktardo. Democrats stole that election and a supermajority of America knows it, and more than 50% are just itching for one of you motherfuckers to slip up. Laws be damned if you're gonna cheat elections.

That's where things are right now in America in 2021.

You can hem and haw all you want, but I'm telling you exactly like it is. Americans outnumber Democrats more than 2:1.

 

[Guno צְבִי]

Hey listen here, fucktardo. Democrats stole that election and a supermajority of America knows it, and more than 50% are just itching for one of you motherfuckers to slip up. Laws be damned if you're gonna cheat elections.

That's where things are right now in America in 2021.

You can hem and haw all you want, but I'm telling you exactly like it is. Americans outnumber Democrats more than 2:1.

 

[Matt Dillon]

I know, I talk to people all day every day. I have a certain peephole into America. The only ones OK with the last election are less than 20% of everybody.

Democrats know the election was cheated. Shocker, rightys: Some do not like that's how it went.

 

[Matt Dillon]

You don't really think stupid commies like you outnumber real Americans, do you? Well, I guess we'll find out when you try to break bad and wish you hadn't.
I'll predict this much: You'll wish you hadn't of. OOoo-Weeee!

Democrats assume there's no black Americans, OoWee! They are dead wrong. That's OK. Run along with your scientific scenarios where you have everything figured out and see what happens and if we do not hang or tar and feather you. You dumbasses are about to have a really bad time. One that was totally preventable.

 

[Taichiliberal]

False authority fallacies. No argument presented.

You do produce an argument when faced with facts you can't logically disprove. Calling the source material lies without any logical proof is just parroting foolishness. You've got nothing but you don't have the intellectual maturity to just concede a point...instead, you just babble and repeat disproven assertions. You're done. Carry on.

 

[Taichiliberal]

The President is not elected by popular vote.

No shyte, Sherlock. WTF do you think we're debating about? Hint: should the electoral college still exist.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
So yes, the "faithless" do effect an outcome....which takes the voting right of the majority of the people and throws it out the window for the rights of a relatively select few. That is a problem for many, and thus the valid point I put forth in this thread's debate.

Completely untrue. All of a state's electoral votes usually go to the candidate winning a plurality of the popular vote. When some electors did not go to the popular vote winner it never affected the outcome of any election. The 5 electoral votes that did not go to Trump or Clinton would not have changed the electoral results since Trump won by 77 electoral votes.

In those 5 elections that the popular vote winner did not win the electoral vote, it was not because some electors did not vote for the popular vote winner in their state.

That is not splitting hairs or a moot point because you are trying to claim just the opposite.

The "flaw" is not in the way electors vote but the make-up of the college itself. It works exactly the way it is supposed to work but is a flaw to some because they want the popular vote winner to become president.

In the original plan the electors were expected to vote for the person they thought would make the best president. They were not supposed to vote for the popular vote winner because there was/is no popular vote in the Constitution. They would not choose among candidates running for office because that was not anticipated.

In 2000 there were no faithless electors (one abstained) but the popular vote winner (Gore) did not win the electoral college.

Okay, let's try it this way. A quote from one of my links which you pontificate on:

7 faithless electors were able to have their faithless votes registered, 2 others were replaced, and one voter switched his vote on the second ballot.


I highlighted the significant point here.....this is in referral to the FACT that once ANY American votes, they are NOT OBLIGATED by any law to tell whom they voted for. Any exit poll uses those who comply, not those who declined (a combination equals total number of voters). So we're given yet another gray area as to whom exactly voted for whom in the electoral college....which (again) validates my previous point that the "margins" still point to an "estimated" shift. There shouldn't be any. You shouldn't have a 2% lead in the popular only to be superceded by a comparative electoral vote. The other link alludes to just this, with some electoral voters admitting they didn't vote for the primary 2 party candidates.

Remember, the electoral college was set up to give equal representation of the lesser (white) populated states with their more populated cousins...and to take the choice of President from being a sole priviledge of the members in the hallowed halls of the 3 branches of gov't.

Well, for a LONG time we've had the technical capability to give the vote to any and all who register...and since EVERYONE regardless of race, creed or color is an American citizen, the electoral college is essentially obsolete. But let's get real, it benefits those on both sides of the political aisle, so it's going to be a cat & dog fight to get rid of it.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Bravo. Outstanding job of laying out the facts, the facts,...and nothing but the facts.

Not quite. Observe: https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...-election-stolen-or-not&p=4462575#post4462575

 

[Flash]

Okay, let's try it this way. A quote from one of my links which you pontificate on:

7 faithless electors were able to have their faithless votes registered, 2 others were replaced, and one voter switched his vote on the second ballot.

Yes, electoral votes count regardless of who they voted for. However, these votes did not mean 1) that each state did not give most of its electoral votes to the popular vote winner; 2) or that those faithless electoral votes changed who won the electoral college and became president.

I highlighted the significant point here.....this is in referral to the FACT that once ANY American votes, they are NOT OBLIGATED by any law to tell whom they voted for. Any exit poll uses those who comply, not those who declined (a combination equals total number of voters). So we're given yet another gray area as to whom exactly voted for whom in the electoral college....which (again) validates my previous point that the "margins" still point to an "estimated" shift. There shouldn't be any. You shouldn't have a 2% lead in the popular only to be superceded by a comparative electoral vote. The other link alludes to just this, with some electoral voters admitting they didn't vote for the primary 2 party candidates.

While individual Americans don't have to reveal who they voted for, electoral votes are done publicly (often televised on C-SPAN). We know who each elector voted for. There is no gray area about who voted for whom in the electoral college.

I don't understand your point about exit polls. It has nothing to do with popular or electoral votes. They are only done in a small number of representative precincts. Usually, if somebody declines to answer you ask the next person (usually they ask every 8th person, for example, based on how many they want in their sample).

And I am completely baffled by what you mean by "(a combination equals total number of voters)" A combination of what? What equals the total number of votes.

Again, if you want to argue that the electoral vote does not always reflect the popular vote you are correct. But, it is not because some electors did not vote for the person they are pledged to support because there are so few who do this.

The electoral college was never intended to reflect a majority of individuals because the founders opposed majority rule. Today, our views are more favorable toward democracy and majority rule. But, in most cases (54 out of 59 elections) the popular vote winner has won the presidency. So, in practice, it reflects the plurality of the people. It does not require a majority of votes (except electoral) and many presidents have been elected with a plurality but not a majority of popular votes: Clinton (1992 & 1996), Nixon (1968), Kennedy (1960), Lincoln (1860).

 

[Matt Dillon]

[/FONT][/SIZE][/I]Yes, electoral votes count regardless of who they voted for. However, these votes did not mean 1) that each state did not give most of its electoral votes to the popular vote winner; 2) or that those faithless electoral votes changed who won the electoral college and became president.




While individual Americans don't have to reveal who they voted for, electoral votes are done publicly (often televised on C-SPAN). We know who each elector voted for. There is no gray area about who voted for whom in the electoral college.

I don't understand your point about exit polls. It has nothing to do with popular or electoral votes. They are only done in a small number of representative precincts. Usually, if somebody declines to answer you ask the next person (usually they ask every 8th person, for example, based on how many they want in their sample).

And I am completely baffled by what you mean by "(a combination equals total number of voters)" A combination of what? What equals the total number of votes.

Again, if you want to argue that the electoral vote does not always reflect the popular vote you are correct. But, it is not because some electors did not vote for the person they are pledged to support because there are so few who do this.

The electoral college was never intended to reflect a majority of individuals because the founders opposed majority rule. Today, our views are more favorable toward democracy and majority rule. But, in most cases (54 out of 59 elections) the popular vote winner has won the presidency. So, in practice, it reflects the plurality of the people. It does not require a majority of votes (except electoral) and many presidents have been elected with a plurality but not a majority of popular votes: Clinton (1992 & 1996), Nixon (1968), Kennedy (1960), Lincoln (1860).

The 2020 election was modeled after the 2000 Bush/Gore election. Personally I think Gore won, but when the governor of the state throws it to his bro. What can you do?

W. was a piece of shit, his dad was, too. So was Jeb! Fuck them all! Globalist cocksuckers.
Granddaddy Bush bankrolled the Nazis.

He paid for Uboats.
What happened when W. was pres? Terrorists attacked us, the FBI and CIA obviously didn't do their jobs, so then the motherfucker makes "The Patriot Act"

All this new shittin' on the 4th amendment and all that.

Fuck that, and fuck him. He's probably down there on their 100s of thousands of acres in South America right now.

I'd like to be put alone in an enclosed space with him for 1 time. Bet your ass I could get him to fess up.

I don't care what CIA tricks his dad taught him

 

[Flash]

The 2020 election was modeled after the 2000 Bush/Gore election. Personally I think Gore won, but when the governor of the state throws it to his bro. What can you do?

There is no similarity between 2000 and 2020. In 2000 the popular vote winner (by 500,000) did not win the electoral vote. In 2020 the popular vote winner (by 7 million) won the electoral vote.

I don't think Jeb Bush did anything to give the election to George. Most people attribute the win to the Supreme Court which stopped the counting. However, if the SC had not acted the Republican state legislature was probably going to award the electors to Bush.

 

[Matt Dillon]

There is no similarity between 2000 and 2020. In 2000 the popular vote winner (by 500,000) did not win the electoral vote. In 2020 the popular vote winner (by 7 million) won the electoral vote.

I don't think Jeb Bush did anything to give the election to George. Most people attribute the win to the Supreme Court which stopped the counting. However, if the SC had not acted the Republican state legislature was probably going to award the electors to Bush.

They cheated the 2020 election. They used 2000 FL as a template and did the same thing in all the states they could.

Was it slick? Yeah. Was it fair and honest and Democracy? Hell no.

 

[Flash]

They cheated the 2020 election. They used 2000 FL as a template and did the same thing in all the states they could.

Was it slick? Yeah. Was it fair and honest and Democracy? Hell no.

Paranoid. Still no evidence to demonstrate any fraud and most easily disproven.

 

[Into the Night]

Sure they did. See this document certifying the Georgia electoral vote signed by all the electors.

The legislature of the State of Georgia didn't choose any electors. They filed contested.

The objections to the electoral vote in AZ were defeated January 6 with only 6 Republican senators supporting the objections.

The legislature of the State of Arizona didn't choose any electors. They filed contested.

The objections to the GA vote were never considered because they were not co-signed by a senator.

Irrelevant. Electors for Georgia are chosen by the legislature of the State of Georgia. No one else.

Congress does not choose electors for Georgia.

 

[Into the Night]

Nope. Now I understand why you claim I say things I never said. You do not read carefully.

Nowhere in that post does it say that a faithless elector ever affected an election outcome. Here is the post again. There is no contradiction:
...removed irrelevant material...

Paradox D.

The controversy is not about electors not voting for the candidate winning their state, it is about the fact that all the electors can vote for the popular vote winner in their state and still the popular vote winner nation-wide does not win the electoral vote.

The president is not elected by popular vote.

 

[Into the Night]

There is no paradox.

You can't wish a paradox away. You must clear your paradox.

RQAA.

You have not cleared your paradox.

See post #539.

I did. Part of paradox D appears there.

But read it more carefully this time.

I did. Part of paradox D appears there.

My point to Tachliberal is that no faithless electoral votes ever affected the outcome of an election.

Paradox D. You're gonna have to clear your paradox, dude. Which is it?