2024 Election showdown - The Thread.

[AztecAlien]

On 10/30/2024 at 1:40 PM, RSF said:

For all of us, yeah.  For you, trying to move the goal posts, probably less so.

Weird, because the one state that's conveniently being addressed is mentioned in my post along with comparisons to other state laws regarding the political attire rules at polling locations. I guess that's too tough for you to understand. 

 

 

 

[masterfrog]

On 10/30/2024 at 2:21 PM, SalinasSpartan said:

I see you conveniently chose not to respond to the post calling attention to the fact that Republicans set the rules in Texas. Weird.

Republicans only set the rules regarding their primary elections. The legislature and governor set the rules for the general elections. In the area where I lived and served, we chose to have a joint primary with the Democrats, so the universal rules applied. This was 20 years ago, so I’m sure some things have changed. 

[Sactowndog]

On 10/30/2024 at 12:32 PM, AztecAlien said:

I don't know about the hat. What about pins? And I think it comes down to the state. And who cares? In some states, people are allowed to wear political attire and voice their opinions and campaign within 100 to 50 feet depending on the state. Are people waiting to vote at the polls not going to see this? 

Here's from the 2020 general election. 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/14/us/election-what-not-to-wear-trnd/index.html

"Displaying or voicing information for or against any candidate is considered "electioneering" -- another word for campaigning. Laws on electioneering at polling locations vary by state. For example, in California and Texas, political attire cannot be worn within 100 feet of a polling place. In Delaware, it's 50 feet."

"Not all states have banned political attire at the polls."

 

 

 

Curious.  Show me a state that allows it at the polling place.  I don’t think it exists but happy to be proven wrong.  

[masterfrog]

On 10/30/2024 at 2:48 PM, Sactowndog said:

Curious.  Show me a state that allows it at the polling place.  I don’t think it exists but happy to be proven wrong.  

Virginia nominates state candidates by party convention (and I think Utah may too). In that environment all sorts of electioneering is allowed. Of course in the general election different rules apply. 

[AztecAlien]

On 10/30/2024 at 1:48 PM, Sactowndog said:

Curious.  Show me a state that allows it at the polling place.  I don’t think it exists but happy to be proven wrong.  

"In Iowa, voters can wear clothes or buttons with political affiliations – but they have to leave a polling place as soon as they cast their ballots."

"And Maine allows voters to wear a campaign button to the polls if “the longest dimension of the button does not exceed 3 inches.”

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/14/us/election-what-not-to-wear-trnd/index.html

 

[masterfrog]

Political attire is a loose term. I can remember seeing buttons like “Pro Life” and I never gave those a second thought about being political attire. I might have thought differently if there would have been an abortion measure on the ballot. 

[Spaztecs]

On 10/30/2024 at 1:17 PM, InnZoneU said:

It's hilarious to have someone claim they were an 'election official' like masterfrog on here that has zero understanding of this law. 

God bless the internet.

He was 

Over on the MWCBoard, he shared his political activism on numerous occasions.

[AztecAlien]

On 10/30/2024 at 1:59 PM, Spaztecs said:

He was 

Over on the MWCBoard, he shared his political activism on numerous occasions.

As did you. 

 

[Spaztecs]

On 10/30/2024 at 1:51 PM, masterfrog said:

Virginia nominates state candidates by party convention (and I think Utah may too). In that environment all sorts of electioneering is allowed. Of course in the general election different rules apply. 

The Utah GOP runs Caucuses and a State Convention where the most extreme Candidate usually gets nominated. That's how Mike Lee was able to take down the incumbent back in 2010. Thankfully, the State Leg realized the dangers of this and allowed a path to the Primary, via signature gathering. Because the Primary is an open voting process and not a closed door affairs for the chosen, more moderate R's usually win in the Primary.

[Spaztecs]

On 10/30/2024 at 2:02 PM, AztecAlien said:

As did you. 

 

I take it you believe that to be a bad thing.

I get that you don't understand.

[SalinasSpartan]

On 10/30/2024 at 12:48 PM, masterfrog said:

Republicans only set the rules regarding their primary elections. The legislature and governor set the rules for the general elections. In the area where I lived and served, we chose to have a joint primary with the Democrats, so the universal rules applied. This was 20 years ago, so I’m sure some things have changed. 

It was pointed out to you, directly, that “things” have changed. 

[masterfrog]

On 10/30/2024 at 3:05 PM, SalinasSpartan said:

It was pointed out to you, directly, that “things” have changed. 

I still don’t see any system where the Republican Party would make the rules for everybody. 

[Spaztecs]

Personally, I think the polling is wrong.

The reverse of 2016 is occuring to many analysts who are "on the ground." 

In 2016 many Trump leaning voters lied to the pollsters out of fear of losing their jobs or societal disapproval. The polls also under polled rural working class voters.

In their desire to accurately capture the Trump effect, they now over sample these folk. To the extent that Dems over performed the polls by four percent in 2022.

Another factor they are uncovering is lots of Trump voters now being sampled are lying again. They are in communities and families that are Trump or die folk. They do not want to rock the boat in their lives so they are lying and saying they will vote Trump. Even to the extent of wearing Maga gear and and yard signs. When they walk into voting booth they will vote Kamala.

I also call bs on the polling because there are a shit ton of pro Trump polls that skew the averages. Even when RCP tries to lessen their value within the average. A lot of this is being done by Trump friendly orgs to lay the groundwork for another Election challenge.

" Hey, the polling showed we were going to win. The Election was stolen ! "

[Sactowndog]

On 10/30/2024 at 12:51 PM, masterfrog said:

Virginia nominates state candidates by party convention (and I think Utah may too). In that environment all sorts of electioneering is allowed. Of course in the general election different rules apply. 

Sure I am talking about a general election not a primary.  

[SalinasSpartan]

On 10/30/2024 at 1:08 PM, masterfrog said:

I still don’t see any system where the Republican Party would make the rules for everybody. 

Yea, I get it, you wouldn’t frame it like that. No shit.

[AztecAlien]

On 10/30/2024 at 2:05 PM, Spaztecs said:

I take it you believe that to be a bad thing.

I get that you don't understand.

Yes. And when it comes to your radical political activism, you're the far, far, far-left guy that registered as a Republican in the State of Utah thinking your going to mess up a primary while tyring to get what's best and benefits yourself personally.

I understand perfectly. 

 

 

 

[UNLV2001]

Trump revealed that he doesn’t actually need votes to be installed as president again. Referencing a “secret plan” he has with Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, Trump said this: “I think with our little secret we are gonna do really well with the House, our little secret is having a big impact, he and I have a little secret, we will tell you what it is when the race is over.”

When pressed, Speaker Johnson released a statement effectively confirming the existence of the plot: “By definition, a secret is not to be shared—and I don’t intend to share this one.”

Most educated guesses assume that Trump and Johnson are “secretly” talking about installing Trump as president through a “contingent election,” whereby the House of Representatives, not the Electoral College, determines the president. 

To understand how this could work, you have to understand the 12th Amendment of the Constitution. Here’s the key language: “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; 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[.]”

This is what people are talking about when they mention a contingent election. What the amendment means is that, if no candidate wins a majority of the Electoral College, the House gets to decide who the president is. The key here is that the process is based not on a vote of the full House but a vote of House delegations, with each state getting an equal vote. Currently, Republicans control 26 of the 50 House delegations, meaning they could hand Trump the presidency in a contingent election scenario.

I think the plan is to steal the Electoral College outright by getting states Trump loses to refuse to certify the results of their election. That’s because the 12th Amendment provides that the president is the person who wins the majority of the “whole number of Electors appointed.” That “whole number” is supposed to be 538. But one potential reading of the amendment is that Trump doesn’t have to win 270 Electoral College votes but just a majority of however many electors show up. Trump’s goal, I believe, is to decrease the number of electors appointed until he wins.

Nobody has yet tried to win an election with fewer than a majority of the Electoral College votes by decreasing the overall number of electors appointed after the election. But it’s an argument the Trump team could put forward, and it’s an argument Democratic lawyers and experts are preparing for.

[TSpoke]

On 10/30/2024 at 2:37 PM, UNLV2001 said:

Trump revealed that he doesn’t actually need votes to be installed as president again. Referencing a “secret plan” he has with Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, Trump said this: “I think with our little secret we are gonna do really well with the House, our little secret is having a big impact, he and I have a little secret, we will tell you what it is when the race is over.”

When pressed, Speaker Johnson released a statement effectively confirming the existence of the plot: “By definition, a secret is not to be shared—and I don’t intend to share this one.”

Most educated guesses assume that Trump and Johnson are “secretly” talking about installing Trump as president through a “contingent election,” whereby the House of Representatives, not the Electoral College, determines the president. 

To understand how this could work, you have to understand the 12th Amendment of the Constitution. Here’s the key language: “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; 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[.]”

This is what people are talking about when they mention a contingent election. What the amendment means is that, if no candidate wins a majority of the Electoral College, the House gets to decide who the president is. The key here is that the process is based not on a vote of the full House but a vote of House delegations, with each state getting an equal vote. Currently, Republicans control 26 of the 50 House delegations, meaning they could hand Trump the presidency in a contingent election scenario.

I think the plan is to steal the Electoral College outright by getting states Trump loses to refuse to certify the results of their election. That’s because the 12th Amendment provides that the president is the person who wins the majority of the “whole number of Electors appointed.” That “whole number” is supposed to be 538. But one potential reading of the amendment is that Trump doesn’t have to win 270 Electoral College votes but just a majority of however many electors show up. Trump’s goal, I believe, is to decrease the number of electors appointed until he wins.

Nobody has yet tried to win an election with fewer than a majority of the Electoral College votes by decreasing the overall number of electors appointed after the election. But it’s an argument the Trump team could put forward, and it’s an argument Democratic lawyers and experts are preparing for.

I don't think this plan will work but the fact they have openly stated they have "secret plan" is fucking chilling. And if they are successful they rip the country apart. Congratulations? 

I don't see how anyone can vote for him knowing they are conspiring to do this shit. THe fact they are talking about it beforehand proves they don't actually beleive there is fraud because the election hasn't even happened. 

[masterfrog]

On 10/30/2024 at 3:37 PM, UNLV2001 said:

Trump revealed that he doesn’t actually need votes to be installed as president again. Referencing a “secret plan” he has with Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, Trump said this: “I think with our little secret we are gonna do really well with the House, our little secret is having a big impact, he and I have a little secret, we will tell you what it is when the race is over.”

When pressed, Speaker Johnson released a statement effectively confirming the existence of the plot: “By definition, a secret is not to be shared—and I don’t intend to share this one.”

Most educated guesses assume that Trump and Johnson are “secretly” talking about installing Trump as president through a “contingent election,” whereby the House of Representatives, not the Electoral College, determines the president. 

To understand how this could work, you have to understand the 12th Amendment of the Constitution. Here’s the key language: “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; 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[.]”

This is what people are talking about when they mention a contingent election. What the amendment means is that, if no candidate wins a majority of the Electoral College, the House gets to decide who the president is. The key here is that the process is based not on a vote of the full House but a vote of House delegations, with each state getting an equal vote. Currently, Republicans control 26 of the 50 House delegations, meaning they could hand Trump the presidency in a contingent election scenario.

I think the plan is to steal the Electoral College outright by getting states Trump loses to refuse to certify the results of their election. That’s because the 12th Amendment provides that the president is the person who wins the majority of the “whole number of Electors appointed.” That “whole number” is supposed to be 538. But one potential reading of the amendment is that Trump doesn’t have to win 270 Electoral College votes but just a majority of however many electors show up. Trump’s goal, I believe, is to decrease the number of electors appointed until he wins.

Nobody has yet tried to win an election with fewer than a majority of the Electoral College votes by decreasing the overall number of electors appointed after the election. But it’s an argument the Trump team could put forward, and it’s an argument Democratic lawyers and experts are preparing for.

And I thought the secret plan was their town halls in swing districts. 

[Spaztecs]

On 10/30/2024 at 2:29 PM, AztecAlien said:

Yes. And when it comes to your radical political activism, you're the far, far, far-left guy that registered as a Republican in the State of Utah thinking your going to mess up a primary while tyring to get what's best and benefits yourself personally.

I understand perfectly. 

 

 

 

If Wyoming were a blue state, you would register D, to have a voice in the Electoral process.

Quit being a disingenuous prick