Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

critic 100 wrote:

If Trump is not a racist, then why is he calling voter fraud in densley black counties in swing states?

Another loser liberal who can't think for themselves and uses race when they run out of bullets in a discussion. Trump was cheated where he was cheated, has nothing to do with race. In fact, he got more black votes than he got in 2016. Feel better now loser?

HERE YA GO BOYS, A LINK THAT NO LIBERAL WILL WATCH OR POST. LOL!!!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjAvw_aplKQ

the trumpists are trying to stall until the electoral college meets. Remember that. They don't mind losing case after case because their goal is not just to toss votes for Joe, it is to prevent the EC from getting to 270.

With that in mind, they lost another one. Trumpists, come back into the light. Stop this.

https://twitter.com/jgeltzer/status/1330290635614646273?s=20

Why does our President have to embarrass himself and beg for swing states to not count ballots and just call him the winner?

The last acr of a desperate man will be to tell his supporters to take up arms and kill every non Trump supporters. Civil war comes next. What a nasty. mean man.

Yep. Trump got more votes from blacks in this election compared to 2016.

2% in 2016, 3% in 2020. That made all the difference in the world.

Flagpole continues his losing streak wrote:

critic 100 wrote:

If Trump is not a racist, then why is he calling voter fraud in densley black counties in swing states?

Another loser liberal who can't think for themselves and uses race when they run out of bullets in a discussion. Trump was cheated where he was cheated, has nothing to do with race. In fact, he got more black votes than he got in 2016. Feel better now loser?

So explain this to me:

Trump's lawyers are arguing districts receiving more ballots returned than issued is evidence of fraud. However it occurs because some voters accidentally spoil their ballot and are issued with a new one and the clerical workers record both by mistake.

The largest instance is in Livonia, a predominately white suburb of Detroit where the numbers are different by 27. But the Republicans have certified this result even though it's the best example of the thing they are alleging has happened in other parts of the county.

Absolute smackdown in Pennsylvania court today (Saturday - 11/21).

Trump's lawyers have to be worried about motions for sanctions. How far out on a limb will you put your career and standing in the bar for Trump? I suspect its rather far, if you knew there was a lot of future, high profile work from him. But would you risk serious sanction for a guy who can turn on allies in a second for nothing more than slight disagreement?

Fishsmiff wrote:

Absolute smackdown in Pennsylvania court today (Saturday - 11/21).

Trump's lawyers have to be worried about motions for sanctions. How far out on a limb will you put your career and standing in the bar for Trump? I suspect its rather far, if you knew there was a lot of future, high profile work from him. But would you risk serious sanction for a guy who can turn on allies in a second for nothing more than slight disagreement?

Yeah, the judge didn't hold back much.

"One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption, such that this Court would have no option but to regrettably grant the proposed injunctive relief despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens. That has not happened," Brann added. "Instead, this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence."

agip wrote:

the trumpists are trying to stall until the electoral college meets. Remember that. They don't mind losing case after case because their goal is not just to toss votes for Joe, it is to prevent the EC from getting to 270.

With that in mind, they lost another one. Trumpists, come back into the light. Stop this.

The EC would work the following way if a state did not cast electoral votes, or Congress decided to thrown them out because there were two conflicting set of votes provided. The method is the same way the Senate works when senators chose not vote.

If all states and DC cast votes then 270 of 538 votes are needed to win (over 50%).

If a state with 20 votes is out of the math then 260 of 518 votes are needed to win.

To drive over 50% means that EC votes in Biden states would have to add up to 75 or greater. Biden would be at 231 votes with Trump at his 232 he currently has and that cannot be increased "swinging" a state over to his side.

Trump would stop 6 Biden states for having their EC votes counted, and that is juts not going to happen. If Trump even managed to kill the EC votes for a single state then it means the Electoral College needs to be dumped because a more intelligent bad actor than Trump could in the future overthrown an election by manipulating the EC.

Here are the six states Trump would need to kill off. They are ranked by voting gap with the smallest gap first and largest gap last (increasing level of difficulty).

AZ (11 EC votes, Biden +11k votes),

GA (16 , Biden +12k),

WI (10, Biden +21k),

NV (6, Biden +33k),

PA (20, Biden +81K)

MI (16, Biden +154k)

The above totals to 79 EC votes.

Flagpole continues his losing streak wrote:

Trollminator wrote:

https://twitter.com/morethanmysle/status/1330172951493226504?s=21

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sq7TeUJwQD4

Watch the only honest people who know that there was election fraud eviscerate Biden and Harris in a factual format....versus the lying Dumocrats.

I think one of the 30 or so courtrooms that Trump's lawyers have been in would have been a good place to produce some evidence of election fraud. And yet, here we are, almost 3 weeks out from the election, and we still haven't seen any.

you sure about this? I think the number is 270, no matter if some states don't submit electors.

agip wrote:

you sure about this? I think the number is 270, no matter if some states don't submit electors.

Positive. There is no fixed number of EC votes required. The denominator is variable and the maximum possible is 538, at the current time (it can change). The requirement is greater than 50%.

Look up Electoral Count Act of 1887.

Some people, like you, think it is 270 votes or die. This is known as an absolute majority. BUT an absolute majority is not absolute if a state decides to not cast electoral votes at all. Just as happens in Congress (both houses) those not voting get dropped out of the denominator. It cannot work any other way. Votes in the Senate and House work with a variable denominators, where those who chose not to votes are dropped out of the math (the denominator decreases).

If states did not submit electors would this not be the same as if a 3rd party candidate had won some states and prevented any candidate from winning 270? The election would be determined by the contingency procedure established in the 12th Amendment.

Quality posters only wrote:

Who you got, the bikers or the liberal whiners? I'm thinking the bikers in a landslide.

LRC Note: This thread was inititially titled, "Official LRC President Donald J Trump Inauguration Thread " and is the thread to discuss/rant about Donald Trump in general. The only way we moderate this thread is to look at post reported to us via the "Report a Post" link so please report posts you find offensive.

I'm tired of this old fart. Can this thread just end and be forgotten.

Trump's only hope is to keep his current 232 EC votes and try to drive Biden to 231 or less. And that requires the EC votes of six Biden states to be dropped.

By the way, Congress has the option to toss out a states Electoral Votes if two conflicting sets of EC votes are sent.

From the link below, "If the chambers agree to reject a particular slate, then those electoral votes do not count." This means dropped from the math ... excluded from the denominator.

http://osaka.law.miami.edu/~schnably/ConLawI(T)-NatlTaskForce,ElectoralCountAct.pdf

KI52 wrote:

If states did not submit electors would this not be the same as if a 3rd party candidate had won some states and prevented any candidate from winning 270? The election would be determined by the contingency procedure established in the 12th Amendment.

There is no third party candidate. The procedure for 2020 would be determined by the Electoral Counting Act (1887). And that applies to states no sending elector, or trying to send two conflicting sets of electors.

Under no circumstance can Trump take away EC votes by changing the already cast vote count. What he is trying to do is prevent EC votes from being cast at all, but only in certain states, by December 8th. He needs to get Biden under his 232 EC votes, and not under 270. Because Trump cannot win with Biden at 269 EC votes and Trump at 232.

critic 100 wrote:

Why does our President have to embarrass himself and beg for swing states to not count ballots and just call him the winner?

The last [act] of a desperate man will be to tell his supporters to take up arms and kill every non Trump [supporter]. Civil war comes next. What a nasty. mean man.

That's actually pretty interesting and informative. I thought if any results weren't certified or the election wasn't decided yet then the Speaker of the House would become president. This would different than a contingent election where the House and Senate vote for president/vice president.

I imagine there would be many interesting legal arguments regarding excluding a state, as part of the Union, from the process.