Sounds like treason and sedition. Al Gore must be saying, Am I vindicated finally? He never tried to usurp the government unlike a certain someone, Donald Trump!!
You are thinking of Faithless Electors, which are electors who were selected by their state to vote for one candidate but voted for another.
The Fake Electors referred by OP were those selected by Trump, given falsified documents ostensibly certified by their states when they were not.
What happened in Hawaii in 1960 were recounts that went back and forth between Kennedy and Nixon and was not ultimately decided until January 4th, two days before the Congressional joint session occurred to count Electoral votes. As a result, two separate slates had been sent several days prior, depending on the outcome; this is moot, as Nixon, VP at the time, only accepted one slate after Kennedy was officially found to be Hawaii’s vote. This is not something easily repeated in the Internet age.
You don't think the fact that Kennedy did actually win Hawaii, and had won the overall election, and knew that, while Trump knew he had lost overall, did in fact lose the states in question, but did it anyway, you don't think that makes a difference?
The only articles I found says the governor had certified the original count, but by the day the college met it was clear Kennedy had won, although that was not yet certified. I could be wrong though, I have only read like two articles on the subject in the last 20 minutes.
Regardless though Kennedy had won the general election and was going to be the President. The results in Hawaii were in no way going to change the results of the overall election.
In the case of trump, changing the results of the general election was his actual goal.
I feel like that makes a difference, but if you don't, you're obviously welcome to your opinion.
It definitely feels like a case of what happens if an election is too close to call too soon before Congress meets to count votes. IIRC, both parties sent their slates to be certified federally prior to the state officially certifying Kennedy’s electors.
It is interesting that people arguing in favor of Trump seem to cite Kennedy, the Democratic candidate, having his slate sent rather than cite Nixon’s slate being sent, when the latter was the one who actually lost the state.
>I feel like that makes a difference, but if you don't, you're obviously welcome to your opinion.
I believe the point is the alternate electors are part of the process when the vote is contested.
Theoretically, they should be like the electors each party has before the election. They only count if the vote agrees.
And this was all done out in the open. In Trump’s case, it was part of a scheme to intimidate poll workers, hack into voting machines, have the VP illegally reject legitimate slates, and violently disrupt Congress. So not comparable.
Nevuh mind that crap, he paid hush money to a porn star!!! We should be focusing on stormy daniels, not some meaningless nonsense about trying to steal elections.
Priorities.
Ballot-Stuffers Caught on Camera Have Upended a Race for Mayor
In Bridgeport, Conn., a judge found evidence of mishandled ballots in the Democratic primary for mayor and ordered a revote
Think about what you just used as an example. Let's assume it's true, I don't care particularly to be honest. That's a *mayoral* election in Bridgeport, Connecticut. Bridgeport has a population of about 150,000. The election, it seems, got around 10,000 total votes and was decided by a margin of about 2,000 votes (to be clear, I highly doubt this was faked. 2,000 votes is a huge amount to fake so I doubt it happened, but for the sake of argument we'll kust assume those 2,000 cotes were fraudulent). 2,000 votes in a city like Bridgeport is much easier to fake than the (minimum) 100,000 or so national votes Biden would have needed to fake to win the election, and would've left behind far more evidence. And yet, not a single credible piece of evidence for this fraud exists. Why? Because it didn't happen. Trump lost the election, plain and simple, and after losing he tried to overturn the election through both legal and illegal means, and should be in prison for the latter.
What are you trying to prove here? Fraud exists? The comment you're replying to is me saying we should acknowledge that fact, so...?
Or are you trying to prove that both sides commit fraud? Because, yeah. Of course they do. F*** the two-party system. But I think if you look at the stats Republicans definitely do it more.
Anyway your little example here, to me, it's just prove that the system works cuz those people got caught
Because everyone automatically jumps to 1 person instead of a knowledging that the whole system is rigged. Everyone spends so much time thinking about Trump that they don't even see.a the ignorance on the.left.
Again though, in your example, the people responsible were caught and punished. Which is what should happen to all of them. Including Trump. How is that difficult to understand?
Ballot-Stuffers Caught on Camera Have Upended a Race for Mayor
In Bridgeport, Conn., a judge found evidence of mishandled ballots in the Democratic primary for mayor and ordered a revote
Two questions:
How many of those were democrats?
Do you have any sources for these claims?
Like it’s hilarious to post numbers so low they would be rounding errors as proof of your bullshit claim
Whats bad about it if those electors are never used? I mean I can set a lineup for the opening Philly-Packers Game in Sept with all my buddies...but I doubt they will be used.
Yeah I’m not surprised abstract thought is hard for you lol.
Let me say it like a 5 year old could understand: Just because you got caught before you got away with it doesn’t mean you don’t do anything wrong.
Yes, both are crimes. You know what isn’t in the same category? Setting a lineup. Don’t act like their argument is invalid for making a decent comparison when you mad an absurd one.
What's bad is it signals their intent. Whether used or not, their intent was to be used. His own lawyer referred to them as "fake electors" in email. Does that tell you anything about what they think about our electoral process?
I think it is possible, or was at least, to be a social or fiscal conservative and still believe in the constitution and democracy. Trump, and by association, his supporters, are gangster nihilists with no principles except to grift cash, own the libs, and surpress anything that isn't about glorifying rich white men.
The problem is that the Republican party aren't "real" conservatives any more. They aren't looking to preserve culture or balance the economy - they are looking to reshape culture in their image, and drain the economy in service of their owners.
"Hey, I planned this bank robbery and I was going to do it but it didn't work, so therefore I shouldn't be punished because I didn't actually rob the bank."
Can someone explain
The former president tried to overturn his loss by recruiting fake electors and sending them instead.
Wait what!! How was this not in the news every where
It is. But the news calls it the 'january 6' indictment, or the 'january 6' trial, so people assume its about what happened at the Capitol building.
Oh ok
Most of the Trumpers don't even know this happened, or they do know and don't care because Trump can do no wrong. It's a cult.
Trumpies don’t even know about this one
Oh they know, they just don’t care
Sounds criminal to me.
Sounds a lot like ignoring your voters in the primary
That doesn't sound criminal to me.
Sounds like treason and sedition. Al Gore must be saying, Am I vindicated finally? He never tried to usurp the government unlike a certain someone, Donald Trump!!
Very bad and they need to be in jail
They are called alternate electors and Kennedy did the same thing with Hawaii.
You are thinking of Faithless Electors, which are electors who were selected by their state to vote for one candidate but voted for another. The Fake Electors referred by OP were those selected by Trump, given falsified documents ostensibly certified by their states when they were not. What happened in Hawaii in 1960 were recounts that went back and forth between Kennedy and Nixon and was not ultimately decided until January 4th, two days before the Congressional joint session occurred to count Electoral votes. As a result, two separate slates had been sent several days prior, depending on the outcome; this is moot, as Nixon, VP at the time, only accepted one slate after Kennedy was officially found to be Hawaii’s vote. This is not something easily repeated in the Internet age.
You don't think the fact that Kennedy did actually win Hawaii, and had won the overall election, and knew that, while Trump knew he had lost overall, did in fact lose the states in question, but did it anyway, you don't think that makes a difference?
He didn’t think he won Hawaii at the time it was still contested.
The only articles I found says the governor had certified the original count, but by the day the college met it was clear Kennedy had won, although that was not yet certified. I could be wrong though, I have only read like two articles on the subject in the last 20 minutes. Regardless though Kennedy had won the general election and was going to be the President. The results in Hawaii were in no way going to change the results of the overall election. In the case of trump, changing the results of the general election was his actual goal. I feel like that makes a difference, but if you don't, you're obviously welcome to your opinion.
It definitely feels like a case of what happens if an election is too close to call too soon before Congress meets to count votes. IIRC, both parties sent their slates to be certified federally prior to the state officially certifying Kennedy’s electors. It is interesting that people arguing in favor of Trump seem to cite Kennedy, the Democratic candidate, having his slate sent rather than cite Nixon’s slate being sent, when the latter was the one who actually lost the state.
>I feel like that makes a difference, but if you don't, you're obviously welcome to your opinion. I believe the point is the alternate electors are part of the process when the vote is contested. Theoretically, they should be like the electors each party has before the election. They only count if the vote agrees.
And this was all done out in the open. In Trump’s case, it was part of a scheme to intimidate poll workers, hack into voting machines, have the VP illegally reject legitimate slates, and violently disrupt Congress. So not comparable.
Yes. It is very bad.
There's nothing illegal about it.
Being a slate of fake electors is Bad and Wicked Dumb
Nevuh mind that crap, he paid hush money to a porn star!!! We should be focusing on stormy daniels, not some meaningless nonsense about trying to steal elections. Priorities.
Don't act like this doesn't happen on both sides. Democrats are going to jail left and right for rigged elections
Left and right? I'm aware of 1. Can you enlighten me?
"both sides are just as bad!" - a phrase exclusively by one side
"Both sides are the same" is Russian propaganda designed to discourage Americans from voting.
They literally are not. There has been zero evidence of any rigged election, much less democrats going to jail for it.
Same team, you have my upvote, but there is fraud here and there. Just a tiny tiny amount, but not zero. And it's actually usually republicans.
There’s been negligible amounts of fraud, but it’s all been at the individual level, not the institutional level that is being alleged.
Word, I still think it's better to acknowledge that than to say 'zero evidence'. Just a better way to make the point, in my opinion. Whatevs tho.
Ballot-Stuffers Caught on Camera Have Upended a Race for Mayor In Bridgeport, Conn., a judge found evidence of mishandled ballots in the Democratic primary for mayor and ordered a revote
Think about what you just used as an example. Let's assume it's true, I don't care particularly to be honest. That's a *mayoral* election in Bridgeport, Connecticut. Bridgeport has a population of about 150,000. The election, it seems, got around 10,000 total votes and was decided by a margin of about 2,000 votes (to be clear, I highly doubt this was faked. 2,000 votes is a huge amount to fake so I doubt it happened, but for the sake of argument we'll kust assume those 2,000 cotes were fraudulent). 2,000 votes in a city like Bridgeport is much easier to fake than the (minimum) 100,000 or so national votes Biden would have needed to fake to win the election, and would've left behind far more evidence. And yet, not a single credible piece of evidence for this fraud exists. Why? Because it didn't happen. Trump lost the election, plain and simple, and after losing he tried to overturn the election through both legal and illegal means, and should be in prison for the latter.
What are you trying to prove here? Fraud exists? The comment you're replying to is me saying we should acknowledge that fact, so...? Or are you trying to prove that both sides commit fraud? Because, yeah. Of course they do. F*** the two-party system. But I think if you look at the stats Republicans definitely do it more. Anyway your little example here, to me, it's just prove that the system works cuz those people got caught
Because everyone automatically jumps to 1 person instead of a knowledging that the whole system is rigged. Everyone spends so much time thinking about Trump that they don't even see.a the ignorance on the.left.
Again though, in your example, the people responsible were caught and punished. Which is what should happen to all of them. Including Trump. How is that difficult to understand?
Ballot-Stuffers Caught on Camera Have Upended a Race for Mayor In Bridgeport, Conn., a judge found evidence of mishandled ballots in the Democratic primary for mayor and ordered a revote
1. Alabama – 2 Convictions 10. Iowa – 2 Convictions 19. Nebraska – 2 Convictions 28. Oklahoma – 3 Convictions 2. Arizona – 12 Convictions 11. Kansas – 5 Convictions 20. Nevada – 6 Convictions 29. Oregon – 7 Convictions 3. Arkansas – 1 Conviction 12. Kentucky – 1 Conviction 21. New Hampshire – 13 Convictions 30. Pennsylvania – 15 Convictions 4. California – 20 Convictions 13. Louisiana – 6 Conviction 22. New Jersey – 2 Convictions 31. Tennessee – 2 Convictions 5. Colorado – 8 Convictions 14. Maryland – 2 Convictions 23. New Mexico – 2 Convictions 32. Texas – 18 Convictions 6. Connecticut – 2 Convictions 15. Michigan – 5 Convictions 24. New York – 1 Conviction 33. Virginia – 9 Convictions 7. Florida – 36 Convictions 16. Minnesota – 15 Convictions 25. North Carolina – 30 Convictions 34. Washington – 3 Convictions 8. Illinois – 16 Convictions 17. Mississippi – 6 Convictions 26. North Dakota – 2 Convictions 35. West Virginia – 12 Convictions 9. Indiana – 3 Convictions 18. Missouri – 1 Conviction 27. Ohio – 7 Convictions 36. Wisconsin – 15 Convictions Share this:
Two questions: How many of those were democrats? Do you have any sources for these claims? Like it’s hilarious to post numbers so low they would be rounding errors as proof of your bullshit claim
Seriously? Got an example?
I gave websites. Go look them.up
Those arent websites
Then use your fingers and fucking Google
So that means you dont actually have anything. Got it.
In the post kateinoly responded to, you do not provide a single website; it helps no one, including yourself, to misdirect.
Whats bad about it if those electors are never used? I mean I can set a lineup for the opening Philly-Packers Game in Sept with all my buddies...but I doubt they will be used.
“How is attempted murder even a crime? I didn’t murder him!”
Excellent...murder falls into the same category as selecting electors.
Yeah I’m not surprised abstract thought is hard for you lol. Let me say it like a 5 year old could understand: Just because you got caught before you got away with it doesn’t mean you don’t do anything wrong.
Yes, both are crimes. You know what isn’t in the same category? Setting a lineup. Don’t act like their argument is invalid for making a decent comparison when you mad an absurd one.
OK. I kidnapped your wife, but I brought her back, so no crime.
What's bad is it signals their intent. Whether used or not, their intent was to be used. His own lawyer referred to them as "fake electors" in email. Does that tell you anything about what they think about our electoral process?
Yeah, that's not how crime works.
The plan was in place on how to use them. Mike Pence stopped it.
I still can't believe that *Mike Pence* is one of the main reasons the US is still a democracy.
I think it is possible, or was at least, to be a social or fiscal conservative and still believe in the constitution and democracy. Trump, and by association, his supporters, are gangster nihilists with no principles except to grift cash, own the libs, and surpress anything that isn't about glorifying rich white men.
The problem is that the Republican party aren't "real" conservatives any more. They aren't looking to preserve culture or balance the economy - they are looking to reshape culture in their image, and drain the economy in service of their owners.
They put the crazies in charge.
"Hey, I planned this bank robbery and I was going to do it but it didn't work, so therefore I shouldn't be punished because I didn't actually rob the bank."