So heres my prediction

Original Quill wrote:

gelico wrote:i think this was posted yesterday or today

''In just the last hour in Nevada, an election worker whose job was to process mail-in ballots says he witnessed irregularities in counting those ballots and was told by a supervisor — who he names — to put through ballots he believed needed signature verification without that verification first being done.

He  says he was also told to ignore discrepancies with addresses. That worker has sworn out an affidavit which has been sent to the Department of Justice here in Washington. A Trump campaign attorney says of that, quote, “The affidavit makes clear that we’re not dealing with oversights or sloppiness. This was intentional criminal conduct.”


https://davidharrisjr.com/steven/nevada-whistleblower-says-he-witnessed-processing-of-illegitimate-votes/

Let the Clark County authorities handle it.  It doesn't change anything nationally.

Original Quill wrote:Let them wonder.  There are lots of people who wonder if Vladimir Putin was running the US from the Kremlin.

Until Trump has evidence that would affect an election, it's all gossip.  Nevada has six electoral votes.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Let them wonder.  There are lots of people who wonder if Vladimir Putin was running the US from the Kremlin.

Until Trump has evidence that would affect an election, it's all gossip.  Nevada has six electoral votes.

Are you saying fraud that doesn't affect the election is OK?

gelico wrote:

Trump has taken North Carolina

figures currently at

Biden/Harris 253
Trump/Pence 268

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Are you saying fraud that doesn't affect the election is OK?

Not at all.  It's a minor-league crime that should be looked into.

But, if we are talking about this recent presidential election, it doesn't merit any particular political scrutiny.  We might as well be talking about someone who threw his gum wrapper on the sidewalk.

Vintage wrote:Slightly off topic but if has been rumoured President elect Biden steps down after a year or so and the Vice President elect becomes the President who then becomes Vice President and on what grounds.

Vintage wrote:Slightly off topic but if has been rumoured President elect Biden steps down after a year or so and the Vice President elect becomes the President who then becomes Vice President and on what grounds.

Original Quill wrote:But, now that Trump has legitimized the practice of provisional appointments, the president can pick a provisional Vice-President.  If the Senate refuses to confirm, s/he remains provisional until the end of the term, but otherwise acts with the same authority.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:But, now that Trump has legitimized the practice of provisional appointments, the president can pick a provisional Vice-President.  If the Senate refuses to confirm, s/he remains provisional until the end of the term, but otherwise acts with the same authority.

Sure buddy. Is that how it works in the Pacific States of America?

Vintage, pay that fool no mind.

The 25th Amendment explains how a new VP is chosen, and I explained the 25th.  

US Constitution wrote:Section 2
Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Sure buddy. Is that how it works in the Pacific States of America?

Vintage, pay that fool no mind.

The 25th Amendment explains how a new VP is chosen, and I explained the 25th.  

Mr. contracts expert.     Section 2 of the 25th Amendment reads:

US Constitution wrote:Section 2
Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

What happens if McConnell pulls a Merrick Garland and never calls the question in the Senate?  You don't think too far ahead, do you?  Small wonder your wife got her hat.

Maddog wrote:Harris would appoint a new VP and both the house and senate would have to approve

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Sure buddy. Is that how it works in the Pacific States of America?

Vintage, pay that fool no mind.

The 25th Amendment explains how a new VP is chosen, and I explained the 25th.  

Mr. contracts expert.     Section 2 of the 25th Amendment reads:

US Constitution wrote:Section 2
Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

What happens if McConnell pulls a Merrick Garland and never calls the question in the Senate?  You don't think too far ahead, do you?  Small wonder your wife got her hat.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Mr. contracts expert.     Section 2 of the 25th Amendment reads:



What happens if McConnell pulls a Merrick Garland and never calls the question in the Senate?  You don't think too far ahead, do you?  Small wonder your wife got her hat.

Wonder what happened to your wife?

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Wonder what happened to your wife?

She's dead.  You haven't answered the question.  What if McConnell pulls a Merrick Garland and never calls the question of a vice-president under the 25th Amendment?

Researching the law is one thing; using the law requires a whole lot more.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

She's dead.  You haven't answered the question.  What if McConnell pulls a Merrick Garland and never calls the question of a vice-president under the 25th Amendment?

Researching the law is one thing; using the law requires a whole lot more.

Did you kill her? I know how you folks from California are.  

If the VP choice isn't approved by both the House and the Senate, we operate without one.  

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Did you kill her? I know how you folks from California are.  

If the VP choice isn't approved by both the House and the Senate, we operate without one.  

Why?  If we employ Trump's modus operandi of making provisional appointments, we can have a vice-president.

McConnell and the Republicans have created this impasse, so the rest of us are left with seeking refuge from the tempest.  Any port in a storm, eh?

Maddog wrote:



https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/create_your_own_president_map.html

You can make your own map here if you feel so bold.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Why?  If we employ Trump's modus operandi of making provisional appointments, we can have a vice-president.

McConnell and the Republicans have created this impasse, so the rest of us are left with seeking refuge from the tempest.  Any port in a storm, eh?

Read the 25th.

It's clear.

US Constitution, 25th Amendment wrote:Section 2: Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Read the 25th.

It's clear.

Once again, you haven't got an answer, thus revealing your ignorance about the Constitution.  You don't want to discuss it, you just say "ugh, um...read 25th Amendment."  Like all simpletons, you want to see things as simple..."moon rises, world flat, woman have dinner on table...ugh.  

I like your suggestion that we read the 25th Amendment, though:

US Constitution, 25th Amendment wrote:Section 2: Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

So, what happens if Congress refuses to confirm?

Should the Congress refuse to confirm anybody, we can borrow from Trump.  Trump has made an interesting move in the face of a reluctant Senate (yes, even his own party occasionally refused him).  That is, he made provisional appointments, ostensibly pending approval, and just let the person remain as 'acting' on a permanent basis.

Thus, he made the appointment permanent without congressional approval.  This precedent could be used to bypass Congress, or any house, when it wants to frustrate the appointment process.

Oh, and if it will make you feel more at-home, I'll add: Ugh...

Maddog wrote:I told you several times.

We operate without a VP until one is appointed and confirmed.

The position isn't necessary. Same a missing one Supreme Court Justice.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:I told you several times.

We operate without a VP until one is appointed and confirmed.

The position isn't necessary. Same a missing one Supreme Court Justice.

By what authority do you say which position is “necessary” and which is not?  To say that a Supreme Court Justice or a Vice-President isn't necessary, doesn't delve into the essential role that the latter people play.

For example, an acting-Secretary of Defense runs the military.  But a Supreme Court Justice participates in interpreting the highest law of the land.  A Vice-President serves as the presiding officer of the Senate and must be prepared at all times to assume the presidency.  Aren't these people as important?

There really isn't a constitutional mandate for determining which role is crucial.  A credible argument can be made that a Justice or a Vice-President is more crucial than a mere cabinet secretary.

Eilzel wrote:Bit more conservative from me. I'm most concerned about Michigan and Pennsylvania which have interesting stats on early voting which aren't great for Biden. Then again, that Texas and Georgia are in play at all bodes badly for Trump.

That said, with more than 10 toss-ups and Trump needing to win them all, my brain says Biden should do it. But my heart is still very much wounded by 2016 lol

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

By what authority do you say which position is “necessary” and which is not? To say that a Supreme Court Justice or a Vice-President isn't necessary, doesn't delve into the essential role that the latter people play.

For example, an acting-Secretary of Defense runs the military. But a Supreme Court Justice participates in interpreting the highest law of the land. A Vice-President serves as the presiding officer of the Senate and must be prepared at all times to assume the presidency. Aren't these people as important?

There really isn't a constitutional mandate for determining which role is crucial. A credible argument can be made that a Justice or a Vice-President is more crucial than a mere cabinet secretary.

Scalia's place sat vacant for a year. The VP will do the same should a replacement not get confirmed. As long as Harris doesn't pick a hard left replacement, her candidate will be approved. VP doesn't really matter much.

And don't forget, that McConnel and 96 other senators voted to approve RBG, so there is plenty of precedent for Reps supporting democratic nominees.

Eilzel wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Bit more conservative from me. I'm most concerned about Michigan and Pennsylvania which have interesting stats on early voting which aren't great for Biden. Then again, that Texas and Georgia are in play at all bodes badly for Trump.

That said, with more than 10 toss-ups and Trump needing to win them all, my brain says Biden should do it. But my heart is still very much wounded by 2016 lol

306.
I was numerically spot on
I'll see you in 2024

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:


Scalia's place sat vacant for a year. The VP will do the same should a replacement not get confirmed. As long as Harris doesn't pick a hard left replacement, her candidate will be approved. VP doesn't really matter much.

And don't forget, that McConnel and 96 other senators voted to approve RBG, so there is plenty of precedent for Reps supporting democratic nominees.    

Not anymore.  I don't know what has gotten into Republicans, but it's a different ball game.

McConnell is using the Senate consent power, as a veto on both government programs and government appointments.  Let me give you a hypothetical/example: during the 1930's Congress passed four Neutrality Acts, holding that the US should stay out of Europe's war with Hitler.  Imagine if McConnell's spirit of obstinateness infected the post-Pearl Harbor Congress.  We would be speaking Japanese and German today.

Some would say that could never happen, but it just happened with Covid-19.  An enemy has invaded and inflicted some 245,000 deaths.  McConnell chooses do nothing.  He has effectively chosen neutrality in the war against a virus.

In any case, we can’t play children’s games with the security of our country.  We’ve got to be vigilant and firm.  We’ve got to negate the Senatorial veto, and that will be by making indefinite provisional appointments for all posts, including the Supreme Court and the Vice-President.

Maddog wrote:This wouldn't have been an issue if you were remotely close about the Dems picking up the Senate.

But once again, to the shock of no one, you were so far off it hurts.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:This wouldn't have been an issue if you were remotely close about the Dems picking up the Senate.

But once again, to the shock of no one, you were so far off it hurts.

It's not about me, or the position I was in, hoping for a flip in the Senate.

Rather, it's about what to do about the here-and-now.  If there is one thing that Trump taught us, it's fuck the mandate, you have the power to do whatever you want for the next four years!!  Let that sink in.

Republicans have taken to using the 'consent' function as a veto to all government action, including appointments.  It is anti-constitutional, if not unconstitutional.  Do you have an answer, other than a childish, ... nah, nah, you lost!!

The McConnell-veto has paralyzed government action on all fronts.  Now, we are in the midst of a great crisis, and we are entirely unable to meet it.  The Senate-veto has rendered useless all concerted action to meet the crisis.  We are dying as the Republican Nero fiddles.

I have offered a solution: use provisional appointments, and executive orders to by-pass the Senate log-jam.  Make them permanent without confirmation…’confirmation’ is just a word, after all.

Other than the fact that I propose it, do you have any objection?