• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged 2024 Election Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Brainster said:
Well, let's just throw the Constitution out the window, eh?
Click to expand...

A counter that seems spawned of much the same dishonesty as spurred your misuse in the first place.


Brainster said:
What you mean to say is that when people are just flapping their lips, treason has some other meaning than the legal one. Terrific.
Click to expand...

Inside is outside, eh? Treason has a normal meaning and complaining about people using that normal meaning correctly is inane.
 
Last edited:
Aridas said:
A counter that seems spawned of much the same dishonesty as spurred your misuse in the first place.

Inside is outside, eh? Treason has a normal meaning and complaining about people using that normal meaning correctly is inane.
Click to expand...

What is your idea of the "normal meaning" of treason?
 
Brainster said:
What is your idea of the "normal meaning" of treason?
Click to expand...

Aridas already explained that. in fact. you recently quoted his explanation.

How is murder, fraud, prostitution, child trafficking etc defined in the constitution? When I was a christian, it bothered me how much people worshipped the Bible more than their god. When people suggest that anything not specifically written in the constitution. regardless of logic and reason doesn't count, to reminds me of biblical literalists.
 
gabeygoat said:
Aridas already explained that. in fact. you recently quoted his explanation.
Click to expand...

Indeed. I can't say that I was surprised, though. His choice to ask that right after quoting me providing an example of a normal and standard definition seems to be much in line with the quality, or rather lack thereof, of the statements and arguments he's been making here.

ETA: It's probably worth saying that Brainster is fairly likely to be an intelligent person overall. His posts here, though, look more like kneejerk reactions to unpleasant things that he doesn't want actually consider or admit rather than being thoughtful or comprehending. Hence the shallowness, lack of memory, and arguments that don't address what was actually said. *shrug*
 
Last edited:
Hercules56 said:
The Eldctoral College voted for Trump over Hillary and Congress certified this result.

Perfectly legitimate election as far as the Constitution is concerned.
Click to expand...

As far as the Constitution is concerned, sure. And as far as the Constitution is concerned the census for 1850 is legitimate despite slavery and Three-Fifths. A perennial issue in Puerto Rico is whether or not the territory should become a state. As I recall, the "No" side was expecting to lose in some referendum and urged voters to go to the beach. Have a barbecue. Don't vote. Do anything except vote. Which would discourage the "Yes" people from voting. When "Yes" inevitably prevailed, the "No" people could say, "But only [some small percentage] of eligible voters participated, and we can't change our system of government for that." Popular elections lend themselves to legitimacy. The consent of the governed. In 2016, Trump won approximately 26% of eligible voters. Clinton did not do much better (about 28%). We're not Sweden, so getting Americans to perform their civic duty is like expecting dogs to play piano, but declaring the person who got the second most votes is bonkers stupid. Incandescently stupid. The only way our system could be dumber is if the person with the second most Electoral College votes was made the Vice President.

The current environment is scary-bad because Trump, who tried to steal an election, has tens of millions of supporters who believe he's the victim. His loss in the EC was identical to 2016, which he called a "landslide," and he lost the popular vote by almost eight digits. Plus, PLUS, he was an incumbent who lost to Joe Biden. I know, everybody here already knows this, but it's beyond frustrating and tomorrow is Monday.
 
Aridas said:
Indeed. I can't say that I was surprised, though. His choice to ask that right after quoting me providing an example of a normal and standard definition seems to be much in line with the quality, or rather lack thereof, of the statements and arguments he's been making here.

ETA: It's probably worth saying that Brainster is fairly likely to be an intelligent person overall. His posts here, though, look more like kneejerk reactions to unpleasant things that he doesn't want actually consider or admit rather than being thoughtful or comprehending. Hence the shallowness, lack of memory, and arguments that don't address what was actually said. *shrug*
Click to expand...

it's a pretty difficult time to be a conservative, full of unpleasant realities they don't want to consider or admit.
 
Hercules56 said:
The Eldctoral College voted for Trump over Hillary and Congress certified this result.

Perfectly legitimate election as far as the Constitution is concerned.
Click to expand...

In addition to Cain's points, it's likely worth noting that this particular angle of arguments looks like it addresses exact none of the examples of reasons to question the legitimacy that I pointed at, either directly or in spirit. Rather, what comes to mind first with the nature of this attempted counter is poll taxes and the past debate over how constitutional they are. Hercules' argument pretty much comes down to ignoring the entire debate and declaring it utterly irrelevant, which ends up supporting the side that was eventually found to be unconstitutional in court and that eventually spurred on the 24th Amendment. Further, Hercules' argument, as used, also has likely unintended implications as absurd as that elections at gunpoint are entirely legitimate, so long as the Electoral College confirms such results, even under duress, and Congress certifies the result at gunpoint. It's not very impressive as arguments go.
 
Last edited:
Aridas said:
In addition to Cain's points, it's likely worth noting that this particular angle of arguments looks like it addresses exact none of the examples to question the legitimacy that I pointed at, either directly or in spirit. Rather, what comes to mind first with the nature of this attempted counter is poll taxes and the past debate over how constitutional they are. Hercules' argument pretty much comes down to ignoring the entire debate and declaring it utterly irrelevant, which ends up supporting the side that was eventually found to be unconstitutional in court and that eventually spurred on the 24th Amendment. Further, Hercules' argument also has implications as absurd as that elections at gunpoint are entirely legitimate, so long as the Electoral College votes for such, even under duress, and Congress certifies the result at gunpoint. It's not very impressive as arguments go.
Click to expand...

No, Congress voting to certify or reject any electoral votes due to threat of force would be deemed invalid by any court.

Try again.
 
Hercules56 said:
No, Congress voting to certify or reject any electoral votes due to threat of force would be deemed invalid by any court.

Try again.
Click to expand...

Unintended consequences of how you're using an argument can easily be unpleasant. Also, if coercion was used as extensively as in the example, why would you think that the courts wouldn't be subject to such duress (or duplicity by collaborators) as well? By the look of it, your attempted counterargument is actually based on appealing to principles over the people enacting such, while your previous electoral college one seems based on the opposite.

While your argument is relevant to the overall (complex) issue, it doesn't actually address the concerns that were raised, much less in the context that they were raised in. Rather, your argument ends up being "the Constitution, so shut up." Poll taxes would still be all fine and dandy officially with that approach. They're not, which highlights a serious flaw in your attempted approach.
 
Last edited:
gabeygoat said:
Aridas already explained that. in fact. you recently quoted his explanation.

How is murder, fraud, prostitution, child trafficking etc defined in the constitution?
Click to expand...

Wow, teachers used to say there is no such thing as a stupid question, so I can only assume they never got asked that particular one.
 
Aridas said:
Unintended consequences of how you're using an argument can easily be unpleasant. Also, if coercion was used as extensively as in the example, why would you think that the courts wouldn't be subject to such duress (or duplicity by collaborators) as well? By the look of it, your attempted counterargument is actually based on appealing to principles over the people enacting such, while your previous electoral college one seems based on the opposite.

While your argument is relevant to the overall (complex) issue, it doesn't actually address the concerns that were raised, much less in the context that they were raised in. Rather, your argument ends up being "the Constitution, so shut up." Poll taxes would still be all fine and dandy officially with that approach. They're not, which highlights a serious flaw in your attempted approach.
Click to expand...

My point was, if the 1/6 Rioters held Congress at gunpoint and said "certify Trump the winner or y'all dead", courts would very likely deem that vote to be null & void.
 
Hercules56 said:
My point was, if the 1/6 Rioters held Congress at gunpoint and said "certify Trump the winner or y'all dead", courts would very likely deem that vote to be null & void.
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court would say that the vote at gunpoint is clearly Unconstitutional, and that since the regular counting of Electoral Votes is fouled up, it would have to be resolved by a vote in the House by the State Legislatures (where the Republicans have a majority).
 
Random said:
The Supreme Court would say that the vote at gunpoint is clearly Unconstitutional, and that since the regular counting of Electoral Votes is fouled up, it would have to be resolved by a vote in the House by the State Legislatures (where the Republicans have a majority).
Click to expand...

Or, Supreme Court would say the certification vote held at gunpoint is null and void, and a new one shall take place.
 
Hercules56 said:
Or, Supreme Court would say the certification vote held at gunpoint is null and void, and a new one shall take place.
Click to expand...

They would argue that the voting deadline had passed and the case would have to be resolved another way. That's basically what they did with Bush v Gore, so there is precedent.
 
Wow, this has been a very revealing little side-track.

People say that Republicans will believe litareally anything, and now we have evidence that it's not just that side,
 
Random said:
They would argue that the voting deadline had passed and the case would have to be resolved another way. That's basically what they did with Bush v Gore, so there is precedent.
Click to expand...

No, that's not what they said in Bush v Gore.

They said the Safe Harbor date had passed, which says all states must resolve all issues regarding their electoral counts.

Now, Congress could have chosen to accept late electoral certificates, up till January 6th, but SCOTUS chose to follow the letter of the rules set forth in the ECA.

They also said that the different methods of recounting votes in each county and electoral district was fundamentally unfair to both candidates.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom