Who do you tip to win the US presidential election

[Ming]

They have done the leg work and have come up with NADA... There just isn't any out there. He lost, pure and simple

[BeBMan]

Gotta wonder why those Dems allowed for presidents like Reagan, Bush, and Trump at all when they're capable to steal elections at will...

[giblets]

So far so good. Give a little hint. What does the Constitution say on that?

The Constitution says that the states will choose their electors on a date determined by Congress, which has already passed (November 3rd).

[Jon Miller]

And the constitution says that the electors must be chosen in a democratic fashion. Changing the rules after the election, or even right before the election, is not choosing things in a democratic fashion. It is the exact opposite.

One of the most concerning points is that such a large portion of Americans have no desire to live in a Democracy/Republic/Nation of Laws. I understand that in the past this was true towards many minorities, women and the poor. But this is now by the minority which represents 1/3 of the wealth of the US (or less) against the majority based on beliefs and not class, sex or race.

JM

[Uncle Sparky]

Lisa Simpson was right.

[Lancer]

They have done the leg work and have come up with NADA...

Not much legwork really. They just pulled those easy answers on the Constitution out of their sizable posteriors. No correct answers yet, and no extra points for BS political commentary. Focus on the question if you truly seek an answer.

[Lancer]

There is one other path to an outcome which makes every vote, not every ballot, count (besides the one you are completely missing) which nobody is talking about. In 2018 there was passed a law giving extensive powers to the president should there be election issues. A president can choose to bring this to pass and from it gain what I've heard referred to as "extensive powers". That's all I've got on that, haven't looked into it yet. This election happens to have epic issues, whether you think so or not.

[Jon Miller]

When did you become so authoritarian? Allowing presidents to invalidate or cancel presidential elections is obviously unacceptable in any nation that is even just pretending to not be a dictatorship.

JM

[Lancer]

Your assumption is incorrect, Trump won. What you are seeing is an effort to overthrow him through corrupting the election and the media. You are supporting authoritarianism and you don't even have the first clue. You are ignorant.

[Uncle Sparky]

Wow. You are an idiot. Loser. Trump is a grifter, and you are a chump.

[Ming]

And you are lacking actual facts...

[Lancer]

Meh, you cannot prove the election was accurate. Biden got 80 million votes? Get real. He got 80 million ballots. Anyway I'm not from around here, I don't insult others without a concrete purpose. My purpose in returning JM's insult is to show where the country may be going next. Should Trump use whatever 'extensive powers' he has to stay in power and say, I don't know, redo the election without mail in ballots, with a few exceptions, then the left will face a bit of a problem. The rest of us would just calmly await the result of the election. I have long been saying that this is 2020, the most divisive thing will happen, and perhaps we are coming to it. I'd imagine the cities will go nuts, destroying the businesses of other leftist city folks, but that's their business. (no pun) So, what would you do?

[Uncle Sparky]

For Lancer and Friends -

Spoiler:

[Lancer]

I don't click those things, and knowing you I think I'll stick with that policy.

[giblets]

Gee, I don't remember Obama declaring the 2016 election illegitimate and holding another election.

[Lancer]

Neither do I. Ask again, what would you do?

[Uncle Sparky]

I know you would keep raping sheep. Prove that you don't.

[Jon Miller]

Your assumption is incorrect, Trump won. What you are seeing is an effort to overthrow him through corrupting the election and the media. You are supporting authoritarianism and you don't even have the first clue. You are ignorant.

It's not an assumption, it is the facts.

To try to come up with some other approach, and probably the only one would be to have the House decide what to do, would require proven election fraud at a grand scale in multiple states. There has not been any evidence provided to the courts for a single state, rather just some wild accusations about a small number of ballots and then the request to invalidate the election. To throw it to the House you have to show, in a court of law (for example), not wild accusations without evidence, that the count is off by 10s of thousands (even 100s of thousands in Pennsylvania and Michigan, the states Trump seems focused on).

To say 'let's redo the election, but with the rules changed even more in our favor' is unacceptable. And I mean unacceptable in a final way, not even 'lock kids in cages' unacceptable (because we were promised that we would be able to vote to change that in a couple of years, which we have done).

JM
(I would posit that Trump is focused on Pennsylvania and Michigan not because they are the easiest to reverse but because the Republicans in those states are most susceptible to authoritarianism.)