• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

CNBC founder claims Trump has a specific plan in hand to stay in office no matter what the voters de

HumblePi said:
Many people assumed that Hillary Clinton would win and for that reason alone, there were many voters that never bothered to vote. This time will be very different. Those people will make it a point to get out to vote against Trump.
Click to expand...

This is the most horrible endorsement of Joe Biden I have ever seen

Over the course of the next few months, people will realize the choice is not between Trump and a vacant White House- it’s between Trump and a senile racist twit who can’t stay awake long enough to run a meeting
 
Last edited:
HumblePi said:
I liked the picture created by artist Mike Mitchell. It can be viewed in several different ways. I did not see it as him depicted as an angry Black man. I saw that image as Trump being Satan, his skin roasted black from the fires of Hell.
Click to expand...

lol. Ok
 
iguanaman said:
The only evidence that mail in votes are prone to cheating is the fact that the Trump family and his associates are fond of voting by mail.
Click to expand...

Do you expect them to show up at the polling booth with security around them?

Sorry, what is the point here?
 
ReubenSherr said:
Do you expect them to show up at the polling booth with security around them?

Sorry, what is the point here?
Click to expand...

LOL The point is that it is good enough for him and his family but not any others. You do not see the irony in that?

FYI It is some what of a tradition for Presidents to show up to a polling place to cast their vote. Most Presidents have done that since TV,
 
iguanaman said:
LOL The point is that it is good enough for him and his family but not any others. You do not see the irony in that?
Click to expand...

I mean...you'd have a really good point, except that it's incredibly dangerous for Trump to show up at a local polling location, it would put our entire nation at risk

Trump doesn't want to shut down mail-in voting completely, he still wants to use it for people who are physically unable to be present at a polling location
 
Dayton3 said:
None of that would enable President Trump to remain in office if he lost the electoral vote.
Click to expand...

Actually, the scenario set forth, while a bit wild, is plausible. He invalidates the election and throws it to the House to decide.

That said, at present, it looks like this is going to be a landslide election. It will make his case for the election being in doubt because of widespread fraud be non-credible. Moreover, the Dems could take the majority in two other states, which is also plausible, this wild scenario would be completely shut down. There simply needs to be a overwhelming verdict by the American people, which is the probable scenario of them all.
 
upsideguy said:
Actually, the scenario set forth, while a bit wild, is plausible. He invalidates the election and throws it to the House to decide.
Click to expand...
How is that plausible? Choosing the electors is explicitly a function of the states. Neither the President nor Congress has the authority, power, or mechanism to invalidate who a state selects as its electors, even under the broadest interpretation of emergency powers. And the vote only goes to the House if there is no majority in the electoral college. Nothing would allow the President or Congress to do that for any reason.

At most, we could have a repeat of 2000 where the Supreme Court has to decide on the validity of votes.
 
pinqy said:
How is that plausible? Choosing the electors is explicitly a function of the states. Neither the President nor Congress has the authority, power, or mechanism to invalidate who a state selects as its electors, even under the broadest interpretation of emergency powers. And the vote only goes to the House if there is no majority in the electoral college. Nothing would allow the President or Congress to do that for any reason.

At most, we could have a repeat of 2000 where the Supreme Court has to decide on the validity of votes.
Click to expand...

The plausibility lies with Barr doing his part to say that there is evidence of substantial fraud in the election and we don't have time to work though the extent of the fraud before the electors must vote (see Bush v. Gore), but rather than have the electors cast there votes based upon this fraud, our Constitution has a mechanism to preserve democracy (the will of the people) and the matter should be decided by the house. Far fetched, yes; but plausible.
 
ReubenSherr said:
Over the course of the next few months, people will realize the choice is not between Trump and a vacant White House- it’s between Trump and a senile racist twit who can’t stay awake long enough to run a meeting
Click to expand...

Is this a parody post? Trump is literally endorsing the confederacy, and regularly uses racist language to describe the covid epidemic and protesters against police violence.
 
upsideguy said:
The plausibility lies with Barr doing his part to say that there is evidence of substantial fraud in the election and we don't have time to work though the extent of the fraud before the electors must vote (see Bush v. Gore),
Click to expand...
That part is possible.

but rather than have the electors cast there votes based upon this fraud, our Constitution has a mechanism to preserve democracy (the will of the people) and the matter should be decided by the house. Far fetched, yes; but plausible.
Click to expand...
That part is impossible. There is no such mechanism. The House can only decide an election when no candidate receives a majority of the electoral vote.
Additionally, neither the President nor the AG has authority over vote except for discrimination based on race, color, sex or age over 18. A state legislature could theoretically nullify the vote and appoint electors, but the Federal government has no authority.
 
pinqy said:
That part is possible.


That part is impossible. There is no such mechanism. The House can only decide an election when no candidate receives a majority of the electoral vote.
Additionally, neither the President nor the AG has authority over vote except for discrimination based on race, color, sex or age over 18. A state legislature could theoretically nullify the vote and appoint electors, but the Federal government has no authority.
Click to expand...

Here is the theory as articulated by Tim Wirth, former US Senator from CO.

It involves the Republican state legislatures being complicit and nullifying the vote such that the electors are not approved. The electors meet, but there are not enough to bring 270 votes to Biden so it gets thrown into the house. Far fetched, but plausible if enough enablers are complicit.

Trump has a plan to stay in the White House if he loses election, former senator says | The Independent
 
MTAtech said:
CNBC founder claims Trump has a specific plan in hand to stay in office no matter what the voters decide

...
“This is how it happens, Biden wins,” he began. “I don’t just mean the popular vote, he wins the key swing states, he wins the electoral college. President Trump says there’s been Chinese interference in the election. He’s been talking about Biden’s soft on China — China wanted Biden to win so he says a national emergency; the Chinese have intervened in the election.”

“Why do I think that’s real?” he continued. “Just ten days ago he tweeted, he actually tweeted, ‘rigged 2020 election,’ millions of mail-in ballots will be printed by foreign countries it will be the scandal of our times. so he’s laying the groundwork for this. So he does an investigation and [Attorney General Bill] Barr backs this up with all kinds of legal opinions about emergency powers that the president has.”

“Then what happens is it’s all geared towards December 14th. Why December 14th? Well, that’s the deadline when the electors of the states have to be chosen,” he elaborated.
...
It goes to the House of Representatives,” Roger continued. “Everybody says, ‘that’s good. Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats control the House. No. when a presidential election is thrown into the House of Representatives under the Constitution, it’s state-by-state vote. Each state gets one vote based on the number of Republicans and Democrats in that delegation. Today Republicans control the House on that kind of vote it 26-23 with on delegation, Pennsylvania split. Even if Pennsylvania was to elect a Democratic delegation, come this new election because it’s the new Congress that votes here, it would be 26 to 24 Republicans and Trump retains the presidency.”
I have no doubt that Trump will try to do everything possible to remain in office because he knows that when he leaves he'll be indicted in NY and federal court.
Click to expand...
this is not the conspiracy theory forum.
 
ReubenSherr said:
This is a myth the left media keeps pushing, and it's completely unproveable.

We have never had nationwide, large-scale mail-in voting, only small-scale mail-in voting in Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, and Utah, five states which have extremely low organized crime.

There is no way to prove, through studies, or examples, that large-scale fraud and/or coercion will not happen.

Especially coercion, I. E. "Show me you voted for Biden and you can stay living under my roof" or "Show me you voted for Biden and you can have a promotion"
Click to expand...

There is no evidence of widespread fraud in any national or state election. Everyone who is in charge of state elections nationwide has said so, including those from red states. There is no evidence that anyone will 'coerce' votes. You're just MSU out of thin air.
 
Sgt Meowenstein said:
Is this a parody post? Trump is literally endorsing the confederacy, and regularly uses racist language to describe the covid epidemic and protesters against police violence.
Click to expand...

What racist language does Trump use to describe protestors against police violence? "Thugs"? The same term Obama used?

Biden states the poor kids are just as bright and talented as white kids, talks to black Americans in "street slang," and states that Obama is the first promiment black American who is clean and articulate.

Blaming the COVID epidemic on China isn't racist. Thousands of Americans are dead as a result of Chinese negligence.
 
Stealers Wheel said:
There is no evidence of widespread fraud in any national or state election. Everyone who is in charge of state elections nationwide has said so, including those from red states. There is no evidence that anyone will 'coerce' votes. You're just MSU out of thin air.
Click to expand...

There is no evidence because it hasn't been tried yet on a massive, nationwide scale, just in a handful of states where organized crime is not an issue

Just because Utah hasn't experienced fraud doesn't mean New York, New Jersey, or Massachusetts will not - there is absolutely nothing valid about the comparison

In terms of coercion, the burden of proof is on the people who want to change the system, not the people who want to keep it the same

Voting booths were purposely designed with curtains. The burden of proof is on you to prove that curtains don't matter, that coercion would not be a problem.
 
Last edited:
upsideguy said:
Here is the theory as articulated by Tim Wirth, former US Senator from CO.

It involves the Republican state legislatures being complicit and nullifying the vote such that the electors are not approved. The electors meet, but there are not enough to bring 270 votes to Biden so it gets thrown into the house. Far fetched, but plausible if enough enablers are complicit.

Trump has a plan to stay in the White House if he loses election, former senator says | The Independent
Click to expand...
Nope. Article II section on states that “ 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.”
That could be interpreted as a requirement to appoint all electors. In which case the states have no option.

But even if the states did fail to appoint the correct number, or even any, then that’s covered as well.

The 12th amendment states “ The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed.” Number appointed, not number supposed to be appointed. So if some electors are not approved, say only 500 appointed instead of 538, then only 251 votes would be required. Or if only 268 electors were appointed, then 135 votes would determine the President. There is clear precedent for this in the 1864 election where the 9 remaining CSA states did not participate, and the electors from liberated Tennessee and Louisiana were rejected. So only 233 electors were appointed instead of 316.

Thinking it over, what could work would be if enough electors abstained or otherwise were faithless. But that’s even less plausible as several states have laws to invalidate faithless votes or abstentions, and replacing them with the pledged votes. And more states have laws to punish faithless electors, enforceable now under the recent SCOTUS ruling.
 
Last edited:
ReubenSherr said:
There is no evidence because it hasn't been tried yet on a massive, nationwide scale, just in a handful of states where organized crime is not an issue

Just because Utah hasn't experienced fraud doesn't mean New York, New Jersey, or Massachusetts will not - there is absolutely nothing valid about the comparison

In terms of coercion, the burden of proof is on the people who want to change the system, not the people who want to keep it the same

Voting booths were purposely designed with curtains. The burden of proof is on you to prove that curtains don't matter, that coercion would not be a problem.
Click to expand...

So, you admit there is no evidence, yet you insist fraud on a massive scale will happen. We have had mail-in ballots for decades with no problem (hint: that is evidence there is no problem). So, if a million or so voters can cast their votes via mail without a fraud or coercion problem there is no reason to believe that if the number of mail-in votes increases there will be a problem. Furthermore, every state has indicated they have safeguards in place to prevent fraud.
 
Trump has never had a specific plan for anything.

If he loses, he'll bitch and moan it was 'rigged' and his supporters will go out and shoot up a black church or a mall full of Hispanics. But on Jan 20th, he'll be out. In fact he might even pack a hissy fit and leave earlier like a kid taking the ball and storming off home because he lost.

Or possibly - and this is pure speculation and wishful thinking - the GOP will seek to minimise the damage he can do between November and January and engineer his exit. They'll have probably lost the senate as well, no longer fear his base, be very angry at Trump for stealing their party, turning it into a cult and dragging it down with him: they'll remove him, let him make some face-saving excuse on medical grounds or whatever, maybe even 25th amendment his fat orange ass and let Pence close up the last few months.

Well that was fun to type anyway.
 
ReubenSherr said:
There is no evidence because it hasn't been tried yet on a massive, nationwide scale, just in a handful of states where organized crime is not an issue

Just because Utah hasn't experienced fraud doesn't mean New York, New Jersey, or Massachusetts will not - there is absolutely nothing valid about the comparison

In terms of coercion, the burden of proof is on the people who want to change the system, not the people who want to keep it the same

Voting booths were purposely designed with curtains. The burden of proof is on you to prove that curtains don't matter, that coercion would not be a problem.
Click to expand...

Yes is has. Most states allow absentee ballots. Moreover something like a fifth of all votes cast were absentee in 2016, that's in the tens of millions. Both parties benefit from it. It's just Trump's latest excuse in case he loses and the Republicans' latest trick to depress turnout. They'll allow it where it's always worked for them, try to stop it in districts they might lose.

And no it does not all come down to f***ing 'curtains'. Are you a draper for chrissakes?
 
uptower said:
Yes is has. Most states allow absentee ballots. Moreover something like a fifth of all votes cast were absentee in 2016, that's in the tens of millions.
Click to expand...

You all keep using this excuse - it's not a legitimate comparison, and you know it

Five states with extremely low organized crime have had full mail-in ballotting. Simply because it's not an issue in Utah doesn't mean it's not going to be an issue in New Jersey.

The mail-in voting in all the other states has simply been for people who are not able to be physically present in the state, you guys know this as well. There is no reason to think there would be fraud from military voters

Most importantly, why are Democrats so convinced that mail-in voting will help them? I can think of one reason :roll:
 
ReubenSherr said:
You all keep using this excuse - it's not a legitimate comparison, and you know it

Five states with extremely low organized crime have had full mail-in ballotting. Simply because it's not an issue in Utah doesn't mean it's not going to be an issue in New Jersey.

The mail-in voting in all the other states has simply been for people who are not able to be physically present in the state, you guys know this as well. There is no reason to think there would be fraud from military voters

Most importantly, why are Democrats so convinced that mail-in voting will help them? I can think of one reason :roll:
Click to expand...

The Democrats are aware that higher voter turnout tends to give them a hand up. It's just numbers: they're more popular with the young, working poor and minorities - precisely the people who are not always motivated or able to vote on the day. In democracies around the world too, higher turnout usually means a shift away from the incumbent regardless of party, but that just happens to suit the Dems in this election as well. So again, just chasing the numbers, that's all they're doing.

You keep introducing made-up conditions like 'organized crime' or false burdens of proof like 'curtains', whereas I have posted legit articles and studies that have actually got the numbers. I see no reason to discuss these angles because they strike me as unrelated, designed to distract or just plain silliness. Given that tens of millions already vote by mail, there is no reason to believe that it would be any less reliable if more people did it. It is already done on a 'massive scale'.
 
uptower said:
The Democrats are aware that higher voter turnout tends to give them a hand up. It's just numbers: they're more popular with the young, working poor and minorities - precisely the people who are not always motivated or able to vote on the day.
Click to expand...

Do you have any sourcing for this? It sounds like, no offense, a line fed to you as you were watching Don Lemon

Why would minorities be "the people who are not always motivated?"

If you have evidence that the minority vote was suppressed in 2016, and that mail-in voting would correct that, that turns this whole issue on its head for me. But in three months of hearing about this, this hasn't been a headline I've heard.
 
Last edited:
uptower said:
You keep introducing made-up conditions like 'organized crime' or false burdens of proof like 'curtains', whereas I have posted legit articles and studies that have actually got the numbers...It is already done on a 'massive scale'.
Click to expand...

What large, populated state, with major U. S. metro areas, and pockets of organized crime, has already had mail-in voting on a "massive scale?"

Studies done on mail-in voting in Utah, Colorado, etc. are completely irrelevant

Utah and Colorado are not accurate cross-sections of the United States
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom