Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It\'s the only way to prevent a bloodbath. Re-run it but with proper
(international if necessary) observers in place at all times during
the whole tallying up period - and NO POSTAL VOTING ALLOWED.
It\'s the only way to prevent a bloodbath. Re-run it but with proper
(international if necessary) observers in place at all times during
the whole tallying up period - and NO POSTAL VOTING ALLOWED.
If we had a fair media, there would be no need to rerun it.
On 11/5/2020 6:08 PM, Cursitor Doom wrote:
It\'s the only way to prevent a bloodbath. Re-run it but with proper
(international if necessary) observers in place at all times during
the whole tallying up period - and NO POSTAL VOTING ALLOWED.
If we had a fair media, there would be no need to rerun it.
On Thursday, November 5, 2020 at 8:47:18 PM UTC-5, amdx wrote:
On 11/5/2020 6:08 PM, Cursitor Doom wrote:
It\'s the only way to prevent a bloodbath. Re-run it but with proper
(international if necessary) observers in place at all times during
the whole tallying up period - and NO POSTAL VOTING ALLOWED.
If we had a fair media, there would be no need to rerun it.
You mean the media gets a vote?? Damn! That has to be the Supreme Court that did that. They gave corporations rights to influence elections, now the vote? Only 100 years after women, I guess that\'s to be expected. I wonder if I can vote for my worms?
It\'s the only way to prevent a bloodbath. Re-run it but with proper
(international if necessary) observers in place at all times during
the whole tallying up period - and NO POSTAL VOTING ALLOWED.
On 11/5/2020 6:08 PM, Cursitor Doom wrote:
It\'s the only way to prevent a bloodbath. Re-run it but with proper
(international if necessary) observers in place at all times during
the whole tallying up period - and NO POSTAL VOTING ALLOWED.
If we had a fair media, there would be no need to rerun it.
In article <gr49qf51elroa6khfs4vcq8ackviq17vit@4ax.com>,
Cursitor Doom <cd@noreply.com> wrote:
It\'s the only way to prevent a bloodbath. Re-run it but with proper
(international if necessary) observers in place at all times during
the whole tallying up period - and NO POSTAL VOTING ALLOWED.
You might want to consider just how many portions of the Constitution
would need to be amended for that to happen, and for it to \"stick\"
legally.
Just to consider three areas:
(1) There\'s no provision in the Constitution which would allow
disregarding the results of a Presidental election, and re-running
it. The Constitution sets to the date for the election. It sets
a date for when the newly-elected president is inaugurated. It
sets the procedures for resolving the situation if the states\'
electors don\'t actually elect a president by Inauguration Day
(there\'s a final one-vote-per-state resolution procedure, which I
don\'t think has ever been used). Changing any of these things
would require a Constitutional amendment, passed by Congress and
then ratified by 38 or more states.
(2) The current president\'s time in that role ends on Inauguration
Day, unless the president is formally re-elected according to the
above Constitutional procedures. The current president doesn\'t
and cannot continue in any sort of \"acting\" role until matters are
resolved... he or she reverts to being a private citizen on that
day. Full stop, game over, thank you for playing. As I
understand it, if neither the President nor the Vice President is
legally re-elected, then the Speaker of the House is next in line
to fill the role of interim President. Once again, changing this
would require a Constitutional amendment.
(3) As to \"no postal voting allowed\", that\'s not a matter that\'s up
the Federal government at all. Under the Constitution, each state
uses its own authority to set its the processes for votor
registration, voting, and vote counting. The Constition claims
specific authority over very little of this: the date of the
election is specified, and the right to vote cannot be denied for
any of several reasons (e.g. race, sex, etc.) but otherwise it\'s
up to the States. You\'d need a Constitutional amendment to force
states to give up their rights to set the terms and conditions of
the elections they run, mandating new uniform country-wide
standards and processes for collecting and counting and auditing
and certifying votes, and forbidding voting by mail (and it\'d
be interesting to see how you might phrase this, such that nobody
could find loopholes or alternative ways of achieving the same
thing e.g. authenticated electronic remote voting of some sort).
Getting 38 states to agree to all of the above, and actually ratify
the necessary Constitutional amendments... good luck. History
suggests it ain\'t gonna happen any time soon, and certainly not
in time to be any help with the present situation.
Trying to force through an election do-over of any sort just wouldn\'t
pass muster, legally, without the above amendments. Neither the
President, nor Congress, nor the courts are given any such authority
by the Constitution. Even if the Democratic and Republican parties
and their candidates all agreed that it was a swell idea and we should
do it, the results would not be legal, and the authority of the
President elected in such a re-do election would be immediately
challenged by a few million lawsuits and would almost certainly not be
upheld by any competent court.
We\'ve inherited the current Constitutional system, and (for present
purposes) we\'re stuck with it. We have to work within its processes,
or the country falls apart.
(1) There\'s no provision in the Constitution which would allow
disregarding the results of a Presidental election, and re-running
it.
If a majority of electors fails to agree on a winner, Congress picks the
winner in continent elections held within Congress under the terms of
the 12th Amendment.
It\'s the only way to prevent a bloodbath. Re-run it but with proper
(international if necessary) observers in place at all times during
the whole tallying up period - and NO POSTAL VOTING ALLOWED.
Big baby dwopped his wattle? Snot fair!
In article <gr49qf51elroa6khfs4vcq8ackviq17vit@4ax.com>,
Cursitor Doom <cd@noreply.com> wrote:
It\'s the only way to prevent a bloodbath. Re-run it but with proper
(international if necessary) observers in place at all times during
the whole tallying up period - and NO POSTAL VOTING ALLOWED.
You might want to consider just how many portions of the Constitution
would need to be amended for that to happen, and for it to \"stick\"
legally.
Just to consider three areas:
(1) There\'s no provision in the Constitution which would allow
disregarding the results of a Presidental election, and re-running
it. The Constitution sets to the date for the election. It sets
a date for when the newly-elected president is inaugurated. It
sets the procedures for resolving the situation if the states\'
electors don\'t actually elect a president by Inauguration Day
(there\'s a final one-vote-per-state resolution procedure, which I
don\'t think has ever been used). Changing any of these things
would require a Constitutional amendment, passed by Congress and
then ratified by 38 or more states.
(2) The current president\'s time in that role ends on Inauguration
Day, unless the president is formally re-elected according to the
above Constitutional procedures. The current president doesn\'t
and cannot continue in any sort of \"acting\" role until matters are
resolved... he or she reverts to being a private citizen on that
day. Full stop, game over, thank you for playing. As I
understand it, if neither the President nor the Vice President is
legally re-elected, then the Speaker of the House is next in line
to fill the role of interim President. Once again, changing this
would require a Constitutional amendment.
(3) As to \"no postal voting allowed\", that\'s not a matter that\'s up
the Federal government at all. Under the Constitution, each state
uses its own authority to set its the processes for votor
registration, voting, and vote counting. The Constition claims
specific authority over very little of this: the date of the
election is specified, and the right to vote cannot be denied for
any of several reasons (e.g. race, sex, etc.) but otherwise it\'s
up to the States. You\'d need a Constitutional amendment to force
states to give up their rights to set the terms and conditions of
the elections they run, mandating new uniform country-wide
standards and processes for collecting and counting and auditing
and certifying votes, and forbidding voting by mail (and it\'d
be interesting to see how you might phrase this, such that nobody
could find loopholes or alternative ways of achieving the same
thing e.g. authenticated electronic remote voting of some sort).
Getting 38 states to agree to all of the above, and actually ratify
the necessary Constitutional amendments... good luck. History
suggests it ain\'t gonna happen any time soon, and certainly not
in time to be any help with the present situation.
Trying to force through an election do-over of any sort just wouldn\'t
pass muster, legally, without the above amendments. Neither the
President, nor Congress, nor the courts are given any such authority
by the Constitution. Even if the Democratic and Republican parties
and their candidates all agreed that it was a swell idea and we should
do it, the results would not be legal, and the authority of the
President elected in such a re-do election would be immediately
challenged by a few million lawsuits and would almost certainly not be
upheld by any competent court.
We\'ve inherited the current Constitutional system, and (for present
purposes) we\'re stuck with it. We have to work within its processes,
or the country falls apart.
Besides, we\'ve been doing postal-ballots-only for years in this state (Washington)
with no problems. The whole thing was set up and run by Republican officials
(Secretary of State is an elected position). If someone told you that postal
ballots were invalid in some way, you kick him next time you see the meddler.
On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 20:21:23 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com
wrote:
Besides, we\'ve been doing postal-ballots-only for years in this state (Washington)
with no problems. The whole thing was set up and run by Republican officials
(Secretary of State is an elected position). If someone told you that postal
ballots were invalid in some way, you kick him next time you see the meddler.
Even if they\'re a highly trained militiaman?
Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Clive Arthur <clive@nowaytoday.co.uk
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: Election Re-Run?
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2020 09:18:30 +0000
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 9
Message-ID: <ro34d8$dpo$1@dont-email.me
References: <gr49qf51elroa6khfs4vcq8ackviq17vit@4ax.com
Reply-To: clive@nowaytoday.co.uk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2020 09:18:32 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host=\"e7719f2fc1f3f02f2873acfe1542f136\"; logging-data=\"14136\"; mail-complaints-to=\"abuse@eternal-september.org\"; posting-account=\"U2FsdGVkX18vMGGOVcY93MGplzn2e5ZLv2am3VrB9rA=\"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.4.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:7azlCN1mx0N/blwrrdkkuvuK7RQ=
In-Reply-To: <gr49qf51elroa6khfs4vcq8ackviq17vit@4ax.com
Content-Language: en-GB
Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:612948
On 06/11/2020 00:08, Cursitor Doom wrote:
It\'s the only way to prevent a bloodbath. Re-run it but with proper
(international if necessary) observers in place at all times during
the whole tallying up period - and NO POSTAL VOTING ALLOWED.
Big baby dwopped his wattle? Snot fair!
--
Clive
On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 19:20:02 -0800, dplatt@coop.radagast.org (Dave
Platt) wrote:
In article <gr49qf51elroa6khfs4vcq8ackviq17vit@4ax.com>,
Cursitor Doom <cd@noreply.com> wrote:
It\'s the only way to prevent a bloodbath. Re-run it but with proper
(international if necessary) observers in place at all times during
the whole tallying up period - and NO POSTAL VOTING ALLOWED.
You might want to consider just how many portions of the Constitution
would need to be amended for that to happen, and for it to \"stick\"
legally.
Just to consider three areas:
(1) There\'s no provision in the Constitution which would allow
disregarding the results of a Presidental election, and re-running
it. The Constitution sets to the date for the election. It sets
a date for when the newly-elected president is inaugurated. It
sets the procedures for resolving the situation if the states\'
electors don\'t actually elect a president by Inauguration Day
(there\'s a final one-vote-per-state resolution procedure, which I
don\'t think has ever been used). Changing any of these things
would require a Constitutional amendment, passed by Congress and
then ratified by 38 or more states.
(2) The current president\'s time in that role ends on Inauguration
Day, unless the president is formally re-elected according to the
above Constitutional procedures. The current president doesn\'t
and cannot continue in any sort of \"acting\" role until matters are
resolved... he or she reverts to being a private citizen on that
day. Full stop, game over, thank you for playing. As I
understand it, if neither the President nor the Vice President is
legally re-elected, then the Speaker of the House is next in line
to fill the role of interim President. Once again, changing this
would require a Constitutional amendment.
(3) As to \"no postal voting allowed\", that\'s not a matter that\'s up
the Federal government at all. Under the Constitution, each state
uses its own authority to set its the processes for votor
registration, voting, and vote counting. The Constition claims
specific authority over very little of this: the date of the
election is specified, and the right to vote cannot be denied for
any of several reasons (e.g. race, sex, etc.) but otherwise it\'s
up to the States. You\'d need a Constitutional amendment to force
states to give up their rights to set the terms and conditions of
the elections they run, mandating new uniform country-wide
standards and processes for collecting and counting and auditing
and certifying votes, and forbidding voting by mail (and it\'d
be interesting to see how you might phrase this, such that nobody
could find loopholes or alternative ways of achieving the same
thing e.g. authenticated electronic remote voting of some sort).
Getting 38 states to agree to all of the above, and actually ratify
the necessary Constitutional amendments... good luck. History
suggests it ain\'t gonna happen any time soon, and certainly not
in time to be any help with the present situation.
Trying to force through an election do-over of any sort just wouldn\'t
pass muster, legally, without the above amendments. Neither the
President, nor Congress, nor the courts are given any such authority
by the Constitution. Even if the Democratic and Republican parties
and their candidates all agreed that it was a swell idea and we should
do it, the results would not be legal, and the authority of the
President elected in such a re-do election would be immediately
challenged by a few million lawsuits and would almost certainly not be
upheld by any competent court.
We\'ve inherited the current Constitutional system, and (for present
purposes) we\'re stuck with it. We have to work within its processes,
or the country falls apart.
We had postal voting in local elections in the UK and it was rife for
fraudulent voting, specifically among the Muslim communities where
such corruption is endemic. I\'d have thought the US would have learned
from our experience in this regard. :-/
On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 03:24:46 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
The mythical well-regulated militia. If they had enough sense to benefit from such training, they\'d have enough sense not to hang around with people who think that postal voting is invalid.
In a scenario where one of your anarchists is launching a kick at a
militiaman or an Oathkeeper, I\'d be inclined to bet against the
anarchist.
X-Received: by 2002:a37:7246:: with SMTP id n67mr2147003qkc.144.1604676549901; Fri, 06 Nov 2020 07:29:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:1193:: with SMTP id b19mr2066087qkk.42.1604676549726; Fri, 06 Nov 2020 07:29:09 -0800 (PST)
Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr1.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2020 07:29:09 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <je8aqfd37dviqogmkg2ohuvp3j3rtt9i7m@4ax.com
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=204.148.35.130; posting-account=I-_H_woAAAA9zzro6crtEpUAyIvzd19b
NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.148.35.130
References: <gr49qf51elroa6khfs4vcq8ackviq17vit@4ax.com> <20se7h-g1b.ln1@coop.radagast.org> <je8aqfd37dviqogmkg2ohuvp3j3rtt9i7m@4ax.com
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <5096e0fd-533d-4983-be4b-8c403d1539a8o@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Election Re-Run?
From: Rickster C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com
Injection-Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2020 15:29:09 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=\"UTF-8\"
Lines: 86
Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:612983
On Friday, November 6, 2020 at 5:15:43 AM UTC-5, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 19:20:02 -0800, dplatt@coop.radagast.org (Dave
Platt) wrote:
In article <gr49qf51elroa6khfs4vcq8ackviq17vit@4ax.com>,
Cursitor Doom <cd@noreply.com> wrote:
It\'s the only way to prevent a bloodbath. Re-run it but with proper
(international if necessary) observers in place at all times during
the whole tallying up period - and NO POSTAL VOTING ALLOWED.
You might want to consider just how many portions of the Constitution
would need to be amended for that to happen, and for it to \"stick\"
legally.
Just to consider three areas:
(1) There\'s no provision in the Constitution which would allow
disregarding the results of a Presidental election, and re-running
it. The Constitution sets to the date for the election. It sets
a date for when the newly-elected president is inaugurated. It
sets the procedures for resolving the situation if the states\'
electors don\'t actually elect a president by Inauguration Day
(there\'s a final one-vote-per-state resolution procedure, which I
don\'t think has ever been used). Changing any of these things
would require a Constitutional amendment, passed by Congress and
then ratified by 38 or more states.
(2) The current president\'s time in that role ends on Inauguration
Day, unless the president is formally re-elected according to the
above Constitutional procedures. The current president doesn\'t
and cannot continue in any sort of \"acting\" role until matters are
resolved... he or she reverts to being a private citizen on that
day. Full stop, game over, thank you for playing. As I
understand it, if neither the President nor the Vice President is
legally re-elected, then the Speaker of the House is next in line
to fill the role of interim President. Once again, changing this
would require a Constitutional amendment.
(3) As to \"no postal voting allowed\", that\'s not a matter that\'s up
the Federal government at all. Under the Constitution, each state
uses its own authority to set its the processes for votor
registration, voting, and vote counting. The Constition claims
specific authority over very little of this: the date of the
election is specified, and the right to vote cannot be denied for
any of several reasons (e.g. race, sex, etc.) but otherwise it\'s
up to the States. You\'d need a Constitutional amendment to force
states to give up their rights to set the terms and conditions of
the elections they run, mandating new uniform country-wide
standards and processes for collecting and counting and auditing
and certifying votes, and forbidding voting by mail (and it\'d
be interesting to see how you might phrase this, such that nobody
could find loopholes or alternative ways of achieving the same
thing e.g. authenticated electronic remote voting of some sort).
Getting 38 states to agree to all of the above, and actually ratify
the necessary Constitutional amendments... good luck. History
suggests it ain\'t gonna happen any time soon, and certainly not
in time to be any help with the present situation.
Trying to force through an election do-over of any sort just wouldn\'t
pass muster, legally, without the above amendments. Neither the
President, nor Congress, nor the courts are given any such authority
by the Constitution. Even if the Democratic and Republican parties
and their candidates all agreed that it was a swell idea and we should
do it, the results would not be legal, and the authority of the
President elected in such a re-do election would be immediately
challenged by a few million lawsuits and would almost certainly not be
upheld by any competent court.
We\'ve inherited the current Constitutional system, and (for present
purposes) we\'re stuck with it. We have to work within its processes,
or the country falls apart.
We had postal voting in local elections in the UK and it was rife for
fraudulent voting, specifically among the Muslim communities where
such corruption is endemic. I\'d have thought the US would have learned
from our experience in this regard. :-/
Yeah, the election was skewed by the huge Muslim, liberal, mail in vote in Georgia. Damn it! I knew we should have done something about that.
--
Rick C.
+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209