What if Trump wins?

[A_Thinker]

And again, if the entire election was compromised, how is "the will of the people" determined?

Everybody knows that the entire election was not compromised ... to the extent that there were SOME legal votes cast.

That's why the burden of proof for demonstrating that the election was to any degree compromised ... falls to Trump's crew.

The states are all certifying that they obtained election results that the nation can depend upon. They're not necessarily guaranteeing that every vote cast in their state was legal, ... but that ENOUGH legal votes were cast to obtain a result which accurately represents the will of the voters in that state, ... (because the states NOW assign their electoral votes according to the winner of the most votes in their states).

The US electoral process has evolved to the fairly democratic process we utilize now, ... from a beginning featuring highly restrictive voting, where only wealthy land-owning men met the qualifications to vote. Also, the Senate was originally appointed, rather than elected.

Likewise, all of the states have evolved their processes to determine their electors per the vote results in their respective states. All of this is in the purview of the states.

This was not the way it was in the beginning of the republic, ... but it is the way it is now ...

 

[muichimotsu]

How do you know it wasn't compromised? Can you prove it?

The burden of proof is on the one making the affirmative claim, not the negative, especially in terms of this situation and for legal proof, the onus is on the affirmative, as the prosecution

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Everybody knows that the entire election was not compromised ... to the extent that there were SOME legal votes cast.

That's why the burden of proof for demonstrating that the election was to any degree compromised ... falls to Trump's crew.

The states are all certifying that they obtained election results that the nation can depend upon. They're not necessarily guaranteeing that every vote cast in their state was legal, ... but that ENOUGH legal votes were cast to obtain a result which accurately represents the will of the voters in that state, ... (because the states NOW assign their electoral according to the winner of the most votes in their states).

The US electoral process has evolved to the fairly democratic process we utilize now, ... from a beginning of a highly restricted voting, where only wealthy land-owning men met the qualifications to vote. Also, the Senate was originally appointed, rather than elected.

Likewise, all of the states have evolved their processes to determine their electors per the vote results in their respective states.

This was not the way it was in the beginning of the republic, ... but it is the way it is now ...

I understand what you are saying. However, if the envelopes which are used to determine the legal vs illegal votes are separated from the ballots and discarded and the legal votes are mixed with all the illegal votes, how then is it possible to differentiate the legal from the illegal ballots?

 

[Oompa Loompa]

The burden of proof is on the one making the affirmative claim, not the negative, especially in terms of this situation and for legal proof, the onus is on the affirmative, as the prosecution

If you had to provide a urine sample and the tamper evident seal was broken, would you have the burden to prove the sample was tampered if it tested positive for drugs? The same principle applies with the ballots. There is no way to determine the legality of the ballots because they have been separated from the envelopes and mixed together.

The bottom line is this. Trumps team doesn't have to prove there was enough fraud to change the results of the election. All they need to do is prove that the results have been irredeemably compromised by fraud.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

So ... you are willing to sellout on the idea of our country operating according to any democratic principals ... just for Trump ?

Well thats a loaded question under false pretenses. As far as I can tell, the only "sellouts" are those who disregarded the constitution with their unconstitutional voting laws which are directly responsible for compromising the results of the entire election.

 

[dzheremi]

It is not my responsibility to show the election is compromised.

It is when that's what you base your thread on.

It is the responsibility of Trump's legal team to provide evidence to a court of law.

Which hasn't happened and is very unlikely to happen (why would they not have come out with this great proof at the beginning of their legal challenges, as opposed to now, when they've had several of them dismissed for lack of evidence?), hence why I answered your OP by saying that this has not happened.

Which is why I prefaced the conversation with a big "IF".

"If" meaning "on the condition that ____" -- since that condition (that the election is proven fraudulent) has not been met, it is perfectly reasonable to reply to your conditional by pointing out how it is already falsified.

You are using "if" to mean "on the assumption that ____", which is certainly another way that you can use it, but it doesn't really leave us with much of a conversation to have, because if we just have to assume in the absence of evidence that this is the case, then what is the point of asking anyone how they would react? That's basically where we are now according to Trump in particular (i.e., the election was 'stolen', and we pretty much have to take his word for it, because that's certainly not what the results out of the states that are still counting or have recently finished their recounts are saying), where it clearly doesn't matter how anyone else reacts precisely because the people driving this narrative (Trump and Trump loyalists in the GOP) are completely impervious to facts.

That's why no matter how big you make that "IF", this thread still reads like basically what it is: Trumpian fanfiction about Trump's dream dictatorship, where it doesn't matter what actually happens or how anyone reacts to it, because he can just keep throwing out accusations that he never has to prove and if anyone says anything about it, they're asked to prove a negative and when they can't do that (because nobody can; that's why nothing that's on the up-and-up functions based on being able to prove a negative, e.g., the courts don't function on the accused's being able to prove themselves not guilty -- there is instead a presumption of innocence), he and/or his team and supporters will decide that this means something, somehow.

That's not how America is supposed to work. Go take that to North Korea or some other place where people have no choice but to believe the Dear Leader because he says so and he has an entire political party that will back him up 'til death. It shouldn't be here.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

It is when that's what you base your thread on.

No, it isn't. If I started a thread asking "if Santa Cause existed, what they would want for a Christmas present?", would I be required to prove Santa existed?

 

[dzheremi]

No, it isn't. If I started a thread asking "if Santa Cause existed, what they would want for a Christmas present?", would I be required to prove Santa existed?

As any super with-it first grader will tell you, Santa Claus is not logically connected to you getting a present. You surely want there to be a logical connection between there being fraud to the point of the vote being "irredeemably compromised" and Trump getting to be president again (even though this makes no logical sense at all; see post #7 or several subsequent posts by Sparagmos), but you probably shouldn't if you want your hypothetical question to be an apt comparison to the scenario that you're trying to present in this thread, because the outcomes of the answer to your question in the OP are very different than the outcomes of the answer to your question above:

IF Santa Claus doesn't exist, you get a present
IF Santa Claus does exist, you get a present

Same outcome either way. It really doesn't matter. (Sorry, kids.)

IF massive fraud happened and it was proven and that somehow made the difference between Trump being president or not (so, not to the point of the election being "irredeemably compromised", but under some other circumstance you didn't actually outline in this thread), then Trump would be president.

IF massive fraud didn't happen, then Trump would not be president.

Very different outcomes.

 

[A_Thinker]

I understand what you are saying. However, if the envelopes which are used to determine the legal vs illegal votes are separated from the ballots and discarded and the legal votes are mixed with all the illegal votes, how then is it possible to differentiate the legal from the illegal ballots?

For this to be considered, there would have to be some evidence of your assumption (i.e. the envelopes which are used to determine the legal vs illegal votes are separated from the ballots and discarded and the legal votes are mixed with all the illegal votes) ...

P.S. The states are, right now, in the process of certifying that only legal votes were counted.

 

[muichimotsu]

If you had to provide a urine sample and the tamper evident seal was broken, would you have the burden to prove the sample was tampered if it tested positive for drugs? The same principle applies with the ballots. There is no way to determine the legality of the ballots because they have been separated from the envelopes and mixed together.

The bottom line is this. Trumps team doesn't have to prove there was enough fraud to change the results of the election. All they need to do is prove that the results have been irredeemably compromised by fraud.

That's an isolated example that can be shown with evidence based on the nature of the tamper seal, you're considering that and ballots the same thing when they're not.

The legality of the ballots is determined by standards set in place, we have people that have pointed this out, it's just more people refuse to even consider that maybe their suspicions are more conspiracy theory than anything rooted in evidence that isn't inferential or anecdotal misinformation

The latter would be a coup by the nature of what is being done, because they are basically undermining anything resembling transparency or the authority of the system that values the will of the people. You can't compare the two at all, because one would actually have remote weight, the other would be throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater.

Seems to me you have no issue with this dictator of a man taking the election and treating it like it's just optional as long as he gives off the illusion that he was "voted" in, even though he wants to then leave it to a group that is biased in his favor (at least in his view), thinking there's no way he can lose when, I'd almost bet money Republicans are not going to vote on party lines with how immature and unpresidential Trump has been the last 4 years.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

How do you know it wasn't compromised? Can you prove it?

How do we know you didn't murder someone? Can you prove it?

 

[Richard T]

I don't know what "a nominated representative from their respective legislation" means, but this is not how the electoral college works. The electors are chosen by the parties in each state, and the popular vote of each state is supposed to inform the electors who they are to cast their vote for. Since not all legislators are electors, it technically does not matter what the partisan makeup of a state's legislature is.

Also, as you can read at the link (in the sidebar, under the question "Who are my electors and how can I contact them?"), the electors are appointed after the general election result is certified, so by that point it is presumably already known who the party in question will have on their list, making the possibility of faithless electors (e.g., a Democratic elector voting for Trump against his or her state's popular vote, or a Republican elector doing the same by voting for Biden) very remote.

I am assuming they mean that if the election is contested and some Electoral College voters are not accepted, and as a result of those Electoral College votes getting tossed, no one gets a majority. This would happen if the Supreme Court ruled that enough fraud was present that no winner could be determined or if Congress disputed the Electoral College voters. In that case the House of Representatives decides with each state getting one vote. Who that representative is would be determined by the state.
What is interesting in history is the election of Rutherford Hayes in 1876. Here we had some states submit two different Electoral College voters and Congress had to decide which ones to accept. Fraud was present, so Congress put the decision to a committee, who then voted for Hayes. In return the south got an end to reconstruction.

 

[hedrick]

Seriously? If their state legislator is primarily Republican, who do you think they are going to vote for? Trump!

There are apparently some Republicans with integrity, at least at the state level.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

How do we know you didn't murder someone? Can you prove it?

Yes.

 

[Sparagmos]

Pure Democracy, Representative Republic, Democratic Socialism…Which is the America We Want? - Sal Martingano

That article describes a Representative Republic as democratic.

 

[Albion]

No, it isn't. If I started a thread asking "if Santa Cause existed, what they would want for a Christmas present?", would I be required to prove Santa existed?

On this forum...you betcha!

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Yes.

Strangely missing here is the proof of your innocence.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

That article describes a Representative Republic as democratic.

And?

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Strangely missing here is the proof of your innocence.

Give me a body and a date and time of death and i can prove my innocence. Can you or anyone at this point prove any votes are valid if the known fraudulent votes have been wrongfully accepted and mixed with the good votes? Again, I hate to use such a gross analogy, it is like taking a urine sample that is positive for cocaine and a clean batch of urine samples and mixing them all together. How do you prove that your sample wasn't the one with cocaine in it? How can anyone prove yours was the sample with cocaine in it? The only solution is to toss the whole batch out because they have been "irredeemably compromised". The same situation has happened with the mail-in ballots. Fraudulent ballots have been separated from the only means of validation (their envelopes) and mixed into the whole batch of valid ballots. What then is the solution to this situation to ensure a free and fair election? How then can the will of the people be determined?

 

[Sparagmos]

And?

It’s a form of democracy, despite what you may believe.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Give me a body and a date and time of death and i can prove my innocence.

Ah, but that is exactly my point. The onus would be on me to connect you to a murder. I’m the one making the allegation, I’m the one that has to prove guilt. Likewise, Trump is the one claiming fraud and a rigged election. Trump and his team are the ones who have to prove it.