Bear Pit: now the sole domicile of politics at LuLa

[Manoli]

...  it would be quite interesting to see what would happen if a State legislature attempted to ignore the will of their voters and change the laws which govern the election process after an election.

It clearly is that simple as that, and if we are talking Penn, for example the State constitution allows for it. What the US Congress  chooses to do is a different matter.

To be clear, when Craig claims that the Penn State constitution 'allows for it'
that, as the posts above read, is to not just change the law after an election, but retrospectively ?

Edit:

I stand  corrected, it is the US Constitution and not the Pennsylvaina constitution.

So the US Constitution allows for changing the law retrospectively ?
I'm not a lawyer, but I would question that.

[faberryman]

And you point is?

You said $170,000 over a life time is peanuts.  I am merely pointing out that he will not be receiving the money over time. He'll receive it all at once. If someone gave me $170,000 dollars tomorrow, I wouldn't think it was peanuts. Perhaps you would.

[Craig Lamson]

To be clear, when Craig claims that the Penn State constitution 'allows for it'
that, as the posts above read, is to not just change the law after an election, but retrospectively ?

I corrected that. Its the US constitution.

[Manoli]

I corrected that. Its the US constitution.

Yes I saw, and I edited my post above.

[Craig Lamson]

You said $170,000 over a life time is peanuts.  I am merely pointing out that he will not be receiving the money over time. He'll receive it all at once. If someone gave me $170,000 dollars tomorrow, I wouldn't think it was peanuts. Perhaps you would.

Yea it might look good at the onset, but if you have no job and now your record is tainted, how long will it last?  Will any of that money be used of legal fees if required? 

[faberryman]

Lets see, he lost his job, and along with it a very nice Postal pension.  $195k seems pretty puny to me.

You seem to think he didn't lie in the affidavit and didn't recant. I don't think we know that yet.

[Craig Lamson]

To be clear, when Craig claims that the Penn State constitution 'allows for it'
that, as the posts above read, is to not just change the law after an election, but retrospectively ?

Edit:
So the US Constitution allows for changing the law retrospectively ?
I'm not a lawyer, but I would question that.

from this article,others are similar.

https://www.witf.org/2020/09/25/could-the-pa-gop-bypass-the-popular-vote-regardless-of-who-wins-heres-what-we-know/

And if the validity of ballots cast on Nov. 3 is called into question, the Pennsylvania legislature could decide to offer its own slate of electors by invoking Article II of the U.S. Constitution. That section grants state legislatures the right to designate the manner in which electors are selected.

[Craig Lamson]

You seem to think he didn't lie in the affidavit and didn't recant. I don't think we know that yet.

We have his statments and if you are inclinded you can listen to the entire, raw and uneddited  2 hour postal inspector interview.  Seems the mail carrier wore a wire to the interview   Full disclosure I've not listened to the entire interview.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkNkQ2nDQfc&feature=youtu.be

So far the government has offered nothing substantial in rebuttal.

The postal employee still says he stands by his original statement. 

[Robert Roaldi]

Care to provide a citation for that statement?

The interviewee in this podcast (https://www.npr.org/2020/11/04/931322781/atlantic-writer-says-current-election-is-a-stress-test-of-american-democracy) talks about this at length. I think he said that it has happened once (1876?) that a state tried to overrule the voters when assigning the Electoral College. He recounts what happened at that time, it was a mess.

It is astounding to me that people are actually discussing the option of a state arbitrarily overruling their own citizens' votes for the purpose of assigning Electoral College members, as if it's a thing. I think someone said that it would "interesting". Yeah, too damn right it would be. How this possibility can exist on the books of a country that calls itself a democracy is mind-boggling.  It is as undemocratic as it's possible to be. OTOH in the early days, non-landowners, women, blacks and Indians couldn't vote so it's not as if there weren't bad ideas back in the 1700s.

Assuming it's not all just a social media con to attract more political donations from the gullible, 5 minutes thought should stop this in its tracks. You have to be spectacularly short-sighted to think this is ok, because even if there's a chance you could jam the system and get your boy back into office THIS time, surely even stupid people realize this could turn on them next election. (OTOH, it wasn't that long ago that McConnell thought it was a bad idea for the exiting administration to force through a Supreme Court pick, so it's not as if in-your-face hypocrisy is ever far away.)

Imagine if Biden were short a few electoral votes today and some Democratic state started talking about overturning the usual Electoral College procedure, can you imagine the outcry!

The fact that this idea is even being floated is an embarrassment.

[faberryman]

We have his statments and if you are inclinded you can listen to the entire, raw and uneddited  2 hour postal inspector interview.  Seems the mail carrier wore a wire to the interview

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkNkQ2nDQfc&feature=youtu.be

So far the government has offered nothing substantial in rebuttal.

The postal employee still says he stands by his original statement.

So it is a toss-up. I don't care enough to spend two hours listening to the postal service interview, even assuming it is true and accurate. I think Project Veritas wired him up and produced the audio recording. They don't exactly have a sterling reputation for honesty. Did you spend two hours of your valuable time listening to the recording?

[Manoli]

... the Pennsylvania legislature could decide to offer its own slate of electors by invoking Article II of the U.S. Constitution. That section grants state legislatures the right to designate the manner in which electors are selected.

OK, thanks the clarification - though that isn't changing the law retrospectively (my words, inferred from the earlier posts), but somewhat makes a mockery of the notion that the election is a 'democratic' process.

[Craig Lamson]

So it is a toss-up. I don't care enough to spend two hours listening to the postal service interview, even assuming it is true and accurate. I think Project Veritas wired him up and produced the audio recording. They don't exactly have a sterling reputation for honesty. Did you spend two hours of your valuable time listening to the recording?

I'll take their record of honesty over many of the Main Stream Media outlets.

As I said in an eariler post I did not listen to the audio tape either.

[Craig Lamson]

OK, thanks the clarification - though that isn't changing the law retrospectively (my words, inferred from the earlier posts), but somewhat makes a mockery of the notion that the election is a 'democratic' process.

I don't think its very democratic if the results of an election may be influenced by fraud. If that were the case I would expect someone to step up and try and make things right.

[faberryman]

I don't think its very democratic if the results of an election may be influenced by fraud. If that were the case I would expect someone to step up and try and make things right.

Trump is only seeking to "make things right" in the states he lost by a narrow margin. He doesn't care in the slightest about fraud in the states that he won, or fraud in states where he lost by a large margin. So let's not kid ourselves about his motives.

Like I said for the umpteenth time, he has a perfect right to engage in this litigation. Let's all sit tight and see what happens.

[Paulo Bizarro]

I am not willing to eat turkey in a group either.  A crown of lamb is being served at my house. 


PS, we spoke to people on both sides to see how comfortable they were in attending Thanksgiving and whether we should hold it.  With the exception of a hand full, everyone is looking forward to it and is planning on attending.  Those whom are not, are choosing not to attend.  This is how it is suppose to work, people making there own risk/reward assessment without  Big Brother telling us what to do.

Thing is, people need to be well informed before making the decision. I can accept my personal risk, but the issue is that I can infect others without knowing so. We had many social gatherings and events in Portugal in the past few months, and now we are seeing the consequences. I am sure those people made their own risk assesment as well.

[James Clark]

Hey look.  Voter fraud in PA.

From this, we can safely assume that the entire election is tainted, and the state should just give it to Trump.  That's fair, right? What?  You say this was fraud perpetrated by a Trump supporter?  So what - the election is now still questionable.  They should still throw it to Trump.  It's only fair.

 

[Craig Lamson]

Trump is only seeking to "make things right" in the states he lost by a narrow margin. He doesn't care in the slightest about fraud in the states that he won, or fraud in states where he lost by a large margin. So let's not kid ourselves about his motives.

Like I said for the umpteenth time, he has a perfect right to engage in this litigation. Let's all sit tight and see what happens.

Why look where it will do you no good. Time and money are limited.    I agree lets see what happens, but does it bother you at all that the MSM is convinced there is no fraud and they are not even looking into the possibility.

[James Clark]

Why look where it will do you no good. Time and money are limited.    I agree lets see what happens, but does it bother you at all that the MSM is convinced there is no fraud and they are not even looking into the possibility.

But Craig, they ARE looking into it.  It's been taken to court *12 times* so far, and they keep coming up with *nothing*   You can read the transcripts.  When asked for evidence, Trump lawyers keep admitting that they have none.

[Craig Lamson]

Hey look.  Voter fraud in PA.

From this, we can safely assume that the entire election is tainted, and the state should just give it to Trump.  That's fair, right? What?  You say this was fraud perpetrated by a Trump supporter?  So what - the election is now still questionable.  They should still throw it to Trump.  It's only fair.

 

Whats the old saying James?  Where there's smoke there's fire. Why is the left so afraid of looking carefully at the results?  Surely they would find great value in a full and open investigation of the vote counts this year. 

[James Clark]

Whats the old saying James?  Where there's smoke there's fire. Why is the left so afraid of looking carefully at the results?  Surely they would find great value in a full and open investigation of the vote counts this year.

Why this year?  Why just in PA WI and GA?   Why just in a way that seeks to delegitimize the results of an election that doesn't actually have any signs of being tampered with?

Edit:  And no, it doesn't follow that because there are 25 cases of dead people voting, that there are probably 25K dead people voting.  That's ridiculous.