Trump to delay the election

[Ifreann]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/donald-trump-united-states-election-delay-voter-fraud-1.5669270

"Saveface" tactics?

That's an interesting take.

[The New California Republic]

Not sure what more there is to discuss here, since the powers-that-be have given a firm "lolno" to his suggestion.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

There's a difference between saying "it's extremely unlikely" and saying "it's unconstitutional" and that's my point.

In all fairness, saying that Trump unilaterally delaying the election is unconstitutional would be technically correct, which I sense is what Vass meant by “it’s unconstitutional”.

[Vassenor]

There's a difference between saying "it's extremely unlikely" and saying "it's unconstitutional" and that's my point.

In all fairness, saying that Trump unilaterally delaying the election is unconstitutional would be technically correct, which I sense is what Vass meant by “it’s unconstitutional”.

Yes, but it's easier to pull at semantics than to actually address the arguemnt.

[Ifreann]

Not sure what more there is to discuss here, since the powers-that-be have given a firm "lolno" to his suggestion.

We can ponder the machinations of Trump's mind that lead to him pushing this idea. Provided we first shield our own minds against psychic damage.

[Neutraligon]

After the fact phone call thanking her for the vote she didn't cast.

Why the hell would anybody call to thank someone for voting?

Another reason, if there is still time to vote, it could act as a reminder to go out and vote.

[Atheris]

Not sure what more there is to discuss here, since the powers-that-be have given a firm "lolno" to his suggestion.

We can ponder the machinations of Trump's mind that lead to him pushing this idea. Provided we first shield our own minds against psychic damage.

Good thing I'm a dark type.

[Godular]

Why the hell would anybody call to thank someone for voting?

Another reason, if there is still time to vote, it could act as a reminder to go out and vote.

While certainly possible, that still rather specifically destroys BCS’s claim.

[Celritannia]

The President cannot ask to alter an election simply because he wants to move it.

The President can ask and Congress can refuse... oh wait, that's actually what happened and there was nothing unconstitutional about it.

And what does this mean? It means Trump cannot delay the election, no matter what. No President can.

Congress won't alter it unless Congress deems it necessary.

Congress is supreme.

[Katganistan]

Why the hell would anybody call to thank someone for voting?

Ask Hillary Clinton. All I know is I was standing right in front of her when the call happened and she had it on speakerphone.

I've spent several minutes on Google searching for "phone call to thank you for your vote" "call from election officials to confirm your vote" "phone call from democratic party thanking you for your vote" and came up with a big fat nothingburger with any site -- not Forbes, not BusinessInsider, not the NY Times, not FOX, not CNN, not MSN, not BBC, not Al-Jazeera, nothing.

Press X for Doubt.

[Vassenor]

The President can ask and Congress can refuse... oh wait, that's actually what happened and there was nothing unconstitutional about it.

And what does this mean? It means Trump cannot delay the election, no matter what. No President can.

Congress won't alter it unless Congress deems it necessary.

Congress is supreme.

And he didn't ask. He demanded.

[Katganistan]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/donald-trump-united-states-election-delay-voter-fraud-1.5669270

"Saveface" tactics?

I doubt it. He is going to try to hang onto the Presidency to the bitter end, for the same reason they fired the US Attorney of the Southern District of NY -- because when he loses the presidency, all the legal investigations his administration's shut down because he's a sitting president will be reopened.

[Shofercia]

There's a difference between saying "it's extremely unlikely" and saying "it's unconstitutional" and that's my point.

In all fairness, saying that Trump unilaterally delaying the election is unconstitutional would be technically correct, which I sense is what Vass meant by “it’s unconstitutional”.

And here's the actual post:

So Trump is demanding a thing that the Constitution does not permit based on an entirely baseless concern.

President Trump's actual statement was a request to Congress, not an edict, and Vass claimed that a presidential request to Congress is unconstitutional. It doesn't matter what you sense, since we have the text right there ^

In all fairness, saying that Trump unilaterally delaying the election is unconstitutional would be technically correct, which I sense is what Vass meant by “it’s unconstitutional”.

Yes, but it's easier to pull at semantics than to actually address the arguemnt.

There are no semantics, since the mere request is not unconstitutional, and you said that it was.

The President can ask and Congress can refuse... oh wait, that's actually what happened and there was nothing unconstitutional about it.

And what does this mean? It means Trump cannot delay the election, no matter what. No President can.

Congress won't alter it unless Congress deems it necessary.

Congress is supreme.

Oddly enough, saying "the President can ask Congress to delay the election"
actually means that the President can ask Congress to delay the election. If you fail to grasp that, I can't help you.

And what does this mean? It means Trump cannot delay the election, no matter what. No President can.

Congress won't alter it unless Congress deems it necessary.

Congress is supreme.

And he didn't ask. He demanded.

According to the OP's source:

Donald Trump suggests delay to 2020 US presidential election

Trump's actual tweet:

"Delay the election until people can properly, securely, and safely vote???"

Do you see those question marks in the end Vass? In the English language, the question marks mean that he was asking, since the question mark denotes an inquiry or question, not a demand.

[Celritannia]

Oddly enough, saying "the President can ask Congress to delay the election"
actually means that the President can ask Congress to delay the election. If you fail to grasp that, I can't help you.

And Congress will always reject, because it not something to just ask to do. It's a lengthy process as it is.

[Celritannia]

Not sure what more there is to discuss here, since the powers-that-be have given a firm "lolno" to his suggestion.

I'm surprised all these "trump to delay election", "Trump to ban titktok" or other "Trump does x" are not merged with the MAGA thread.

At least the UK thread is all contained.

[Cannot think of a name]

In all fairness, saying that Trump unilaterally delaying the election is unconstitutional would be technically correct, which I sense is what Vass meant by “it’s unconstitutional”.

And here's the actual post:

So Trump is demanding a thing that the Constitution does not permit based on an entirely baseless concern.

President Trump's actual statement was a request to Congress, not an edict, and Vass claimed that a presidential request to Congress is unconstitutional. It doesn't matter what you sense, since we have the text right there ^

Yes, but it's easier to pull at semantics than to actually address the arguemnt.

There are no semantics, since the mere request is not unconstitutional, and you said that it was.

And what does this mean? It means Trump cannot delay the election, no matter what. No President can.

Congress won't alter it unless Congress deems it necessary.

Congress is supreme.

Oddly enough, saying "the President can ask Congress to delay the election"
actually means that the President can ask Congress to delay the election. If you fail to grasp that, I can't help you.

And he didn't ask. He demanded.

According to the OP's source:

Donald Trump suggests delay to 2020 US presidential election

Trump's actual tweet:

"Delay the election until people can properly, securely, and safely vote???"

Do you see those question marks in the end Vass? In the English language, the question marks mean that he was asking, since the question mark denotes an inquiry or question, not a demand.

I have seen some epic needle threads in my time on NSG, but one this elaborate to present "Asking congress to do something unconstitutional isn't unconstitutional" is really, just...wow. And like you're dunking on someone, which is icing on the cake. Fantastic.

[Vassenor]

And here's the actual post:



President Trump's actual statement was a request to Congress, not an edict, and Vass claimed that a presidential request to Congress is unconstitutional. It doesn't matter what you sense, since we have the text right there ^




There are no semantics, since the mere request is not unconstitutional, and you said that it was.




Oddly enough, saying "the President can ask Congress to delay the election"
actually means that the President can ask Congress to delay the election. If you fail to grasp that, I can't help you.





According to the OP's source:



Trump's actual tweet:



Do you see those question marks in the end Vass? In the English language, the question marks mean that he was asking, since the question mark denotes an inquiry or question, not a demand.

I have seen some epic needle threads in my time on NSG, but one this elaborate to present "Asking congress to do something unconstitutional isn't unconstitutional" is really, just...wow. And like you're dunking on someone, which is icing on the cake. Fantastic.

And all because I dared to Criticise Trump. I forgot how mad that makes people.

[Purpelia]

And what of the Diebold voting machines that were pre-loaded with votes?
The "hanging chads" of the election in Florida?

Again, if one idea is bad that does not make other ideas any less bad. The heat of an oven does not make the sun less hot.
And yes, I am saying voting machines are a bad idea as well. Shocking, I know. The proper way to vote is via paper ballots and sealed boxes. That way the only ones that can cheat are the people counting. As it should be.

There is no reason to delay the election, and no reason to prevent a mail-in vote alongside the in-person vote. There was voter fraud caught with in-person voting.

Voter fraud ALWAYS happens. It happens even here in the civilized world. What matters is making it difficult to do so that it's done less.
It's the same logic as with any other crime. You can't stop it all. But you can reduce the incidence.

Mail-in voting has been done since the Civil War, and is commonly done with little to no fraud for Americans who are out of the country for the election, as well as in some states. The claim is unsubstantiated.

Suicide by knife has been done since the stone age. Is still stupid.

[Rusozak]

Not sure what more there is to discuss here, since the powers-that-be have given a firm "lolno" to his suggestion.

I'm surprised all these "trump to delay election", "Trump to ban titktok" or other "Trump does x" are not merged with the MAGA thread.

At least the UK thread is all contained.

It may. It's probably going to be something new every week until he's out. It's like a sitcom except everything isn't back to normal at the end of the episode.

[Godular]

Suicide by knife has been done since the stone age. Is still stupid.

Right now, standing in a long line to do in-person voting is kind of a similar situation... en masse.

[Shofercia]

Oddly enough, saying "the President can ask Congress to delay the election"
actually means that the President can ask Congress to delay the election. If you fail to grasp that, I can't help you.

And Congress will always reject, because it not something to just ask to do. It's a lengthy process as it is.

First, it wasn't unconstitutional to ask, and that was my point... a point that you still don't seem to grasp. Second, President Trump redefined what is, and is not "something to just ask to do" but that's not as important as the first point I just made.

Vass' statement: And he didn't ask. He demanded.

My response:
According to the OP's source:

Donald Trump suggests delay to 2020 US presidential election

Trump's actual tweet:

"Delay the election until people can properly, securely, and safely vote???"

Do you see those question marks in the end Vass? In the English language, the question marks mean that he was asking, since the question mark denotes an inquiry or question, not a demand.

I have seen some epic needle threads in my time on NSG, but one this elaborate to present "Asking congress to do something unconstitutional isn't unconstitutional" is really, just...wow. And like you're dunking on someone, which is icing on the cake. Fantastic.

Congress moving the election is not unconstitutional, because Congress has the power to do that. I've never seen so many people argue against facts before, it's quite amusing. Furthermore, Vass just stated "he didn't ask, he demanded" when in reality - he asked. Unless of course, CTOAN, you want to argue that saying "Delay the election until people can properly, securely, and safely vote???" is apparently a demand. Apparently Orange Man Bad is so bad, that him merely asking questions is now unconstitutional.

And all because I dared to Criticise Trump. I forgot how mad that makes people.

And in reality, you've criticized President Trump plenty of times, and the majority of those I didn't give a fuck about. The Constitution is something I care about, so when you got that wrong, I called out your bullshit for what it was. And here you are, trying to deflect yet again...

[Xmara]

Not sure what more there is to discuss here, since the powers-that-be have given a firm "lolno" to his suggestion.

We can ponder the machinations of Trump's mind that lead to him pushing this idea. Provided we first shield our own minds against psychic damage.

The inner machinations of Trump's mind are an enigma

[Tekania]

Postponing the election is a non-issue to me. Without being specifically re-elected. Trump's presidency would then end on January 20th, 2021 at noon along with with Pence's vice-presidency. As such we would end up with either Nancy Pelosi as the 46th President assuming the states simply re-appoint existing congressmen or the appointments that do happen do not largely change the makeup of the house, or Patrick Leahy assuming the congressional seats which would become vacant on January 3rd are not filled by appointment by the 20th.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Probably almost none. You can tell by how there is already mail-in voting in the US and there's never been a big problem.

Voter fraud is just part and parcel of the U.S. electoral system. My mom allegedly voted for Clinton last election, except for the fact she was home all day that day. You think mail-in ballots don't conveniently go missing? Hell, 65,000 ballots were flat out rejected due to being too late, because the mail is slow.

Well, we're getting Christmas levels of parcels every day because everyone's ordering instead of going to the store, meaning I'm working 10 hour days while only getting paid my route evaluation of 8.6 hours.

[Kannap]

Probably almost none. You can tell by how there is already mail-in voting in the US and there's never been a big problem.

Voter fraud is just part and parcel of the U.S. electoral system. My mom allegedly voted for Clinton last election, except for the fact she was home all day that day. You think mail-in ballots don't conveniently go missing? Hell, 65,000 ballots were flat out rejected due to being too late, because the mail is slow.

Can confirm, I got my phone call personally from Hillary Clinton last week thanking me for voting for her. Must be a massive backlog of people to thank, really tireless work.