8 ms·

> denying the President-Elect after an election. The official process is chugging along properly just as it always has. We have to wait till December for the E

> denying the President-Elect after an election. The official process is chugging along properly just as it always has. We have to wait till December for the Electoral College to make a decision. Why? Why don't they just read the news and decide based on that to appease the masses? Because robust processes aren't robust if you skip them! Plenty of people denies the last president-elect after that election too. But the system kept on working because it's stable.

hilbertseries 6y ago
This is not entirely accurate. The GSA had been preventing the transition team working in full, by refusing to recognize Biden as president elect.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  What makes him President-elect? The media?
  - hilbertseries 6y ago
    As the vote count currently stands he’s going to be the president. There’s no reason to think the vote totals are going to change. In 2016, Trump was also referred to as president elect at this point. Or were you very careful to correct anyone that said Trump had won in 2016 and pointed out that it wasn’t actually decided until the election was certified? This whole thing is such a farce. Trump has been claiming massive voter fraud with no evidence since 2016 (actually he also claimed it in 2012 when Obama won). He started claiming it a day after the election and has yet to produce any evidence. While every Secretary of State says there’s no evidence of massive voter fraud. And pointing this out and that trumps claims are baseless, which is all purely factual, has somehow become biased.
    - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
      > As the vote count currently stands he’s going to be the president Actually the president is not chosen by the popular vote. You may not like how our democracy chooses presidents but that doesn't change facts. > There’s no reason to think the vote totals are going to change. In 2016, Trump was also referred to as president elect at this point. In 2016 the other contestant had conceded. > Or were you very careful to correct anyone that said Trump had won in 2016 and pointed out that it wasn’t actually decided until the election was certified? I'm pretty sure I asked what makes him President-elect. Do you have an answer? > Trump has been claiming massive voter fraud with no evidence since 2016 What kind of evidence would you accept? > He started claiming it a day after the election and has yet to produce any evidence. Videos of ballot fraud and sworn affidavits are evidence. > While every Secretary of State says there’s no evidence of massive voter fraud. And pointing this out and that trumps claims are baseless, which is all purely factual, has somehow become biased. The bias is insisting that there is no evidence when there is evidence.
      - hilbertseries 6y ago
        > Actually the president is not chosen by the popular vote. You may not like how our democracy chooses presidents but that doesn't change facts. I was not referring to the popular vote, by the current vote count Biden wins enough electoral votes to be the next president. > In 2016 the other contestant had conceded. Curious, conceding also has no constitutional bearing on who the next president is. But, that's sufficient to you, as opposed to all of the votes having being counted and it being clear who the winner is. > Videos of ballot fraud and sworn affidavits are evidence. > The bias is insisting that there is no evidence when there is evidence. Where is this evidence and why has it not shown up in any of these court cases. Rudy and Powell just had an absurd press conference, claiming all sorts of voter fraud. The trump campaign's lawsuit in Pennsylvania, that Rudy personally argued, was just dismissed, let me quote the Judge: > In other words, Plaintiffs ask this Court to disenfranchise almost seven million voters. This Court has been unable to find any case in which a plaintiff has sought such a drastic remedy in the contest of an election, in terms of the sheer volume of votes asked to be invalidated. 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. Instead, this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence. It is not bias to say there's no evidence, when time and time again, it's shown in court, that there's no evidence.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> We have to wait till December for the Electoral College to make a decision. Can you point to any time since the adoption of the Presidential Transition Act of 1963 that the GSA has waited until Electoral College vote to begin the transition process as required by law, or, in the alternative, provide any legal argument as to why you believe that every Presidential Transition since then has been conducted illegally? > Plenty of people denies the last president-elect after that election too. Yes, sure, but not the people legally mandated to facilitate the transition, in order to protect continuity and effectiveness of government operations and national security.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  > Can you point to any time since the adoption of the Presidential Transition Act of 1963 that the GSA has waited until Electoral College vote to begin the transition process as required by law, or, in the alternative, provide any legal argument as to why you believe that every Presidential Transition since then has been conducted illegally? You're missing the point. Usually the transition happened early because the winner and the loser agreed on who had won. At this time, the official results are still in doubt. Therefore there isn't a reason to begin official transition.
  - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    The results are not in doubt. Trump wants to claim that they are, but they aren't, and they haven't been for at least two weeks.
    - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
      > The results are not in doubt. according to you. Wanting your guy to "win" is not a justification for disenfranchising people who feel differently or abandoning legal process.
      - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
        According to me? According to anybody who's not blinded by partisanship. The objective reality is that there is no path to a Trump victory. That ship sailed weeks ago. All that's left is Trump desperately trying to somehow prevent the inevitable, and looking hopeless, desperate, and delusional in the process. That's the reality. And Biden isn't "my" guy. I don't particularly want him. (Didn't want Trump, either, and I got them both, one after the other.) And: "win"? Biden won. No "quotes" about it.

hilbertseries 6y ago

This is not entirely accurate. The GSA had been preventing the transition team working in full, by refusing to recognize Biden as president elect.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago
What makes him President-elect? The media?
- hilbertseries 6y ago
  As the vote count currently stands he’s going to be the president. There’s no reason to think the vote totals are going to change. In 2016, Trump was also referred to as president elect at this point. Or were you very careful to correct anyone that said Trump had won in 2016 and pointed out that it wasn’t actually decided until the election was certified? This whole thing is such a farce. Trump has been claiming massive voter fraud with no evidence since 2016 (actually he also claimed it in 2012 when Obama won). He started claiming it a day after the election and has yet to produce any evidence. While every Secretary of State says there’s no evidence of massive voter fraud. And pointing this out and that trumps claims are baseless, which is all purely factual, has somehow become biased.
  - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
    > As the vote count currently stands he’s going to be the president Actually the president is not chosen by the popular vote. You may not like how our democracy chooses presidents but that doesn't change facts. > There’s no reason to think the vote totals are going to change. In 2016, Trump was also referred to as president elect at this point. In 2016 the other contestant had conceded. > Or were you very careful to correct anyone that said Trump had won in 2016 and pointed out that it wasn’t actually decided until the election was certified? I'm pretty sure I asked what makes him President-elect. Do you have an answer? > Trump has been claiming massive voter fraud with no evidence since 2016 What kind of evidence would you accept? > He started claiming it a day after the election and has yet to produce any evidence. Videos of ballot fraud and sworn affidavits are evidence. > While every Secretary of State says there’s no evidence of massive voter fraud. And pointing this out and that trumps claims are baseless, which is all purely factual, has somehow become biased. The bias is insisting that there is no evidence when there is evidence.
    - hilbertseries 6y ago
      > Actually the president is not chosen by the popular vote. You may not like how our democracy chooses presidents but that doesn't change facts. I was not referring to the popular vote, by the current vote count Biden wins enough electoral votes to be the next president. > In 2016 the other contestant had conceded. Curious, conceding also has no constitutional bearing on who the next president is. But, that's sufficient to you, as opposed to all of the votes having being counted and it being clear who the winner is. > Videos of ballot fraud and sworn affidavits are evidence. > The bias is insisting that there is no evidence when there is evidence. Where is this evidence and why has it not shown up in any of these court cases. Rudy and Powell just had an absurd press conference, claiming all sorts of voter fraud. The trump campaign's lawsuit in Pennsylvania, that Rudy personally argued, was just dismissed, let me quote the Judge: > In other words, Plaintiffs ask this Court to disenfranchise almost seven million voters. This Court has been unable to find any case in which a plaintiff has sought such a drastic remedy in the contest of an election, in terms of the sheer volume of votes asked to be invalidated. 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. Instead, this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence. It is not bias to say there's no evidence, when time and time again, it's shown in court, that there's no evidence.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> We have to wait till December for the Electoral College to make a decision. Can you point to any time since the adoption of the Presidential Transition Act of 1963 that the GSA has waited until Electoral College vote to begin the transition process as required by law, or, in the alternative, provide any legal argument as to why you believe that every Presidential Transition since then has been conducted illegally? > Plenty of people denies the last president-elect after that election too. Yes, sure, but not the people legally mandated to facilitate the transition, in order to protect continuity and effectiveness of government operations and national security.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago
> Can you point to any time since the adoption of the Presidential Transition Act of 1963 that the GSA has waited until Electoral College vote to begin the transition process as required by law, or, in the alternative, provide any legal argument as to why you believe that every Presidential Transition since then has been conducted illegally? You're missing the point. Usually the transition happened early because the winner and the loser agreed on who had won. At this time, the official results are still in doubt. Therefore there isn't a reason to begin official transition.
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  The results are not in doubt. Trump wants to claim that they are, but they aren't, and they haven't been for at least two weeks.
  - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
    > The results are not in doubt. according to you. Wanting your guy to "win" is not a justification for disenfranchising people who feel differently or abandoning legal process.
    - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
      According to me? According to anybody who's not blinded by partisanship. The objective reality is that there is no path to a Trump victory. That ship sailed weeks ago. All that's left is Trump desperately trying to somehow prevent the inevitable, and looking hopeless, desperate, and delusional in the process. That's the reality. And Biden isn't "my" guy. I don't particularly want him. (Didn't want Trump, either, and I got them both, one after the other.) And: "win"? Biden won. No "quotes" about it.