Who do you tip to win the US presidential election

[Lancer]

Four more years sweet pea, can you survive it Sparky?

[Ming]

Put your money where you mouth is. Let's make a money bet.
Oh... or are you too scared to do so since you are simply believing in the Trump Fantasy

[Kidlicious]

It won't be long before you can't say anything that makes lame brain look bad on any Big Tech platform.

https://thehill.com/policy/technology/529414-youtube-to-start-removing-content-alleging-widespread-election-fraud

Call me a conspiracy theorists but we are going to find out who is behind this.

[Ming]

Gee, maybe if Trump and his minions could actually PROVE there was wide spread and massive voter fraud, the social media sites would allow them instead of calling them what they are, baseless lies.

[Kidlicious]

That's ridiculous. They have an agenda. But not in your fantasy world.

[-Jrabbit]

It's only disinformation and lies about voter fraud posted to YouTube after 12/8 safe harbor day that is affected. Anything uploaded before today, no matter how vile and full of lies, stays up.

No need to panic, Nancy.

[Kidlicious]

It's only disinformation and lies about voter fraud posted to YouTube after 12/8 safe harbor day that is affected. Anything uploaded before today, no matter how vile and full of lies, stays up.

No need to panic, Nancy.

12/8 means nothing because the election is in dispute. So it's YouTube putting out disinformation.

At any rate, they are covering up fraud and all kinds of stuff that no decent people would cover up.

[Ming]

Then please prove that there was actually massive fraud... oh that's right, they have proved nothing so far

[Kidlicious]

That talking point is beside the point, but that's what talking points are for. They are shielding the government from criticism (assuming Biden wins). It's a group of oligarchs using monopoly power to elect a President and then using their power to protect him from scrutiny so as to undermine the Republic.

[-Jrabbit]

No, that happened 4 years ago.

[Jon Miller]

12/8 still means something even in a disputed election. It means that each state has said that there is no problems with it's electoral votes. This doesn't mean that congress has to accept them, in January congress will have the opportunity to invalidate the votes, if it so chooses.

If you dispute an election there are two main dates. One is 12/8, when states have to have to submit their slate. Then it is in January when congress validates the vote. In the past, 12/14 also mattered a lot (and you could say it is actually on 12/14 when Biden becomes the official President-elect) but recent rulings and laws have taken away the electors ability to use their discretion.

JM

[Kidlicious]

12/8 still means something even in a disputed election. It means that each state has said that there is no problems with it's electoral votes. This doesn't mean that congress has to accept them, in January congress will have the opportunity to invalidate the votes, if it so chooses.

If you dispute an election there are two main dates. One is 12/8, when states have to have to submit their slate. Then it is in January when congress validates the vote. In the past, 12/14 also mattered a lot (and you could say it is actually on 12/14 when Biden becomes the official President-elect) but recent rulings and laws have taken away the electors ability to use their discretion.

JM

They key is that they say there is no problems or dispute. They intentionally certify votes that really shouldn't be certified because they don't really even know how many are legal. That's why pressure was put on the canvassers in MI to certify the votes even though the validity couldn't be verified.

So, yes it's a deadline, but it doesn't mean that the outcome of the election is certain.

[Jon Miller]

2000, 2004 and 2016 (and other ones? not sure) were all 'disputed'. But it doesn't mean that Bush and Trump did not become president. People of the left didn't show up armed with guns at officials homes. Clinton and Obama (in 2000 and 2016) didn't call people in various states asking them to find a way to change the results of the election nor did they call legislatures asking them to go against the will of the people.

There was one real court case, in 2000, which went in favor of Bush... it is likely that Bush would have still won if it hadn't gone in favor of him and it was basically a decision to stick to the 12/8 deadline.

JM
(Gore could possibly have won if the entire state had been recounted, they were that close, but my understanding is that the limited recount that was stopped by the Supreme Court was completed later and found Bush to still be ahead.)

[Jon Miller]

They key is that they say there is no problems or dispute. They intentionally certify votes that really shouldn't be certified because they don't really even know how many are legal. That's why pressure was put on the canvassers in MI to certify the votes even though the validity couldn't be verified.

So, yes it's a deadline, but it doesn't mean that the outcome of the election is certain.

It is.

If you want a different outcome now you basically have to convince both the House and the Senate to invalidate the electors vote on 12/14 (since now most electors do not have any discretion and the states can no longer change their electors). The House is more likely to vote to impeach then it is to vote to invalidate the electors vote.

The states say that there is no problems or dispute that calls into question the result. There are always some people who have problems or choose to dispute... that is why you have to have evidence before it is considered reasonable resulting in some special session called to implement a backup plan.

If evidence does come forth that is strong enough, it is possible in some sense that the House votes to invalidate the vote of some state(s).

JM

[Jon Miller]

Trump applying pressure to officials, governors and legislatures is straight out of a dictators playbook. If it isn't illegal it should be. It is definitely impeachable.

JM

[Jon Miller]

There have been 50 (or more) court cases which have went against Trump this last month. Including in friendly courts and by friendly judges.

That in and of itself is unreasonable. One or even six would have been acceptable, depending on the arguments and evidence. 50 is just shopping around for a judge/court who will ignore the merits/evidence/law.

JM