Personally looking forward to the shift from GOP assholes trying to break the election and on to GOP assholes opening hundreds of bogus investigations into the sitting president. All of which will be giant inflated nothingburgers floating before the eyes of the moronic many.
And then, in two years, they can spin that bullshit into retaking the house, and the you will all be fucked.
Nope. I don’t watch any of those, thanks. The US government is not a fucking reality show. Anyone who tries to claim they are president on Jan 20 who doesn’t have a right to do so based on the Constitution better be prepared for a short stay in federal prison and an even shorter one in the execution chamber Trump’s been working overtime.
Reminds me of the old show To Tell the Truth opening scene.
I am the President of the United states
No.I am the President of the United states
No.I am the President of the United states
Aim for the gills, then.
Will Cruz use this to actually prevent Biden from becoming President? Of course not. But will Cruz use two hours of Senate floor time to wax heroically about how the election runs counter to the will of REAL AMERICANS’, and only patriots like him are brave enough to stand to Democrats’ cheating ways? Of course he will.
Then he’ll pivot effortlessly into a rant about how the federal budget needs to be balanced because Biden’s spending proposals are bankrupting the country.
Luckily, most of the country is just like you, and so there would not be destabilizing mass confusion.
Nah, I’ve been browsing the Fucking NY Times thread, and was specifically thinking of this 1859 article that was posted the other day:
The 7th season of House of Cards is full of surprises.
it wouldn’t be surprising if they do.
Mark, that wording is almost identical to how you closed your post pushing Van Jones’s theory that Trump would delay the certification of the electoral vote and throw the election to the House.
And this theory, just like that one, and the variations on “the president will cancel the election and declare martial law” I’ve been seeing every four years since 2004, is electoral fan fiction. It’s “what-if” noodling with little or no basis in reality.
The problem with hyping these kinds of ridiculous hypotheticals, in my view, is that they distract from the very real ways in which Trump and his party have tried to undermine the election and, when that didn’t work, undermined public faith in its result.
Cutting funding for the Post Office? That was a serious threat. The various lawsuits trying to prevent votes from being counted? The ones before the election were also serious threats (though the ones after were farcical). Rushing Barrett’s confirmation? Well, unlike 2000, the election didn’t end up being close enough for the Supreme Court to decide it, but nonetheless we’ll be living with the results of the Barrett for the next generation or two.
Rather than wasting our energy on fantasy, I think we should be concerned with the real challenges we’re facing. Trump’s questioning the integrity of the election and whipping up his cultlike followers; some of them are threatening violence. It’s a minor miracle nobody shot up a polling station.
And Trump’s not going to go away. For years to come he’ll be swearing he’s the real president. His saying that doesn’t make it so (contrary to your earlier post, Trump refusing to concede does not actually mean he still gets to be president), but it’s still going to have a serious impact, because a dangerous number of people will believe him, and who knows what they’re going to do?
OH well, no body wants that. Given the choice, Cruz would pick Biden over her any day.
Still - I find it frustrating that BB decide to introduce this new, unlikely scenario. For… what purpose? Don’t we have enough shit to stress about?
Holy fuck. I’m going to go get some ice cream.
This thread argues that the article is mince:
Here’s the key bit:
One of these clowns is going to do it. Either Ted Cruz or Lindsay Graham. Both desperately want to be the next fascist douche overlord. My money is on Cruz, his dad took out JFK for crying out loud!
I support a President Pelosi, if for nothing else than some of them might literally have strokes.
I figure, by now, that’s really the point: sowing fear, distrust, and insomnia. (I’m quick that way.) If they happen to stumble ass-backwards into a favorable (for them) outcome, like Trump himself did 4 years ago, then so much the better (for them).
What would the Parliamentarian say? The position hasn’t been overruled in 45 years.
While that’s a good policy on its own, the real takeaway is that, no, this is not a realistic scenario. So just enjoy the ice cream and don’t stress about the Ted Cruz Galactic Emperor threat…
Unicorn chaser of sorts
From the Electoral Counting Act of 1887:
“Objections to individual state returns must be made in writing by at least one Member each of the Senate and House of Representatives. If an objection meets these requirements, the joint session recesses and the two houses separate and debate the question in their respective chambers for a maximum of two hours,” the CRS said. “The two houses then vote separately to accept or reject the objection. They then reassemble in joint session, and announce the results of their respective votes. An objection to a state’s electoral vote must be approved by both houses in order for any contested votes to be excluded.”
[https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/explaining-how-congress-settles-electoral-college-disputes]
Seems far-fetched that each vote would become its own agenda item. Seems likely that each contested state would be a two-hour bundle.
