I am sorry “I” ams unwilling to change my viewpoint or make concessions? The same applies to you. I haven’t even asked you to change your viewpoint. I have asked simple question -
and you haven’t even remotely addressed it. You are the one wasting everyone’s time by creating unrela hypothetical grandstand scenarios ti justify a nonsensical point. maybe learn how to give what you demand first. But that is the curse of the establishment, right? If I cant convince you to agree to what I say then you are a “deplorable”. Hows that going for us?
When you refuse to make basic concessions, refuse to change your viewpoint and wont even answer a simple question, then how can you even claim someone else is the one being unreasonable? This is a discussion. Like my argument about CO EQUAL branches of government, I also think we are equals in this debate. But like your argument, you seem to think you have authority over me to force me to change my opinion and any counter points I make are “useless arguments”. because you have no interest in having a discussion just forcing your position onto others. THAT IS your argument in a nutshell. Too bad, you TOO dont have any way to enforce it. Tough tamales. It muft be frustrating for you when might doesn’t make right, right?
Which is what I said in the beginning. This election should have never been this close. But it is this attitude of people to make others “submit” to your choices and decisions as to why it is close. Talk about yourself. I will be voting to keep a DICTATOR out of office - doesn’t matter if they are on Red or Blue ticket. You want people to vote, establishment needs to change its attitude towards the electorate.
Aording to you if republicans won the electoral college in all 50 states and SOTUS declared them the winner, the executive can still overturn the decision because what is SCOTUS gonna do about it?
See? 2 can play this game.
Stop wheasling about and answer the Q:
Unlike you constantly putting words in my mouth, I haven’t misrepresented anything. Those are post hoc scenarios designed to justify the position you are touting. Like I mentioned, that wasn’t the original question? What does your position have to do with the originall post?
Under the system of electoral college, popular votes mean nothing. It is unfair but that is the constitutional system. However, this clearly indicates an ambiguous scenario. So what does your grandstanding have to do with anything?
The original scenario - That literally happened to Hillary, she challenged it in courts (both D and R states) and lost. But none of that was ever unconstitutional. So what would make it so this time? I cant take anything you say seriously when you haven’t answered one single question.
help me represent your position correctly by answering it
1 Like
You don’t get to dictate the terms of this conversation. I’ve explained it as clearly as I can to you, numerous times, the rest is up to you
2 Likes
It’s ok alobenstein, you’re in a conversation with a person who is more interested in increasing the number posts on this thread than authentically exchanging/debating ideas. Review some of wrongturn’s posts in other threads and you may see a pattern: responses that are not trying to understand your point of view, but rather just trying to illicit another response from you (by disagreeing, or more often by misrepresenting your perspective). You may find your time/energy better spent exchanging ideas with participants who demonstrate more genuine motivations.
3 Likes
Neither do you. Nor do you have the right to dictate what I should and should not believe. The entire thread you have only been trying to conform me to your faulty logic without showing the same courtesy you demand of others. After all this nonsense, you still haven’t answered the ONE question I asked you.
And you have explained nothing. All you have done is present unrelated riciulous strawman scenarios with no basis in reality to justify your unconstitutional position of a power grab post hoc. You keep misrepresenting the actual law. Just throwing in buzz words like checks and balances or separation of powers doesn’t hide the blatant abuse of power from the executive. Like you have said many times, according to you this is justified because SCOTUS cant enforce the rules while executive can when they disagree. That is erosion of separation of powers FOR executive outreach - the very thing that the constitution and courts are made to defend against.
The Constitution was specifically designed to protect the people from the government they elected. Separation of powers and checks and balances are a part of that. So according to the constitution, the specific branch shouldn’t be interfering in the checks and balances against them. That is why Irepeadtedly mentioned impeachment. because Judges or Executive cannot interfere in the impeachment which puts a check on them. The biggest check on the executive are the elections. In an ambiguous outcome, where no one is a clear winner, incumbent executive party deciding they are the winner in contravention to SCOTUS ruling is just plain unconstitutional and a dictatorial power grab. Just like Trump did. There is no justification for this. You know that. But you just don’t want to admit it. so flailing around and misrepresenting other’s points isn’t going to help. The reason why you have failed to impose your ridiculous dictatorial ideas on me is because you havent argued your case substantively. If you had, you would realise the flaws being pointed out. According to you everyone must agree with you or you wont have a 'debate". I don’t think you understand how debates work then. Because you have to listen to the other person too and answer their questions and respond to what is being asked and said. If you are only interested in shouting loudly with fingers in your ears, ofcourse you are not going to get anything by “debating” anyone. Keep supporting dictators, I never will
2 Likes
Here ocmes the “I dont have an actual basis for my argument and I misreperesent everything but project” cabal. None of you people are actually interested in debates. Just shoving your opinions down other people’s throats. I have pointed numerous flaws in his arguments and he hasn’t answered the first question I asked him.
Just like you never explained you electoral math. because it never was electoral. it was judicial. You people can keep hating the fact that your BS gaslighting doesn’t work on everyone. Fortunately that doesn’t change reality. And I guess I WAS right because dem establishment did realise that picking shapiro for a swing state wasn’t worth losing many others. THAT is how ELETORAL math works. But why do I expect you people to operate in reality. You all always sound like Blue MAGA just trying to justify power grabs and judicial math and mysterious polls which don’t even show what you claim - ever. Pick an average when it suits you, pick a single obscure poll when it suits you. You never actually engage with the substance of any argument.
And thanks for letting me know why you people keep posting here. Toincrease messages in thread counts? Really? That is something you actually waste your time doing?
2 Likes
It’s ok, now that the sitting president has absolute power for “official” duties Biden can just declare Trump a national security threat, along with all the people pushing project 25. If it’s gonna be authoritarian, I’ll take the blue flavor 
2 Likes
Yeah, if the RW steals this election they people they are stealing it from will still be in charge of the Federal Government. Would Biden/Harris cooperate in their own undoing?
1 Like
(No offense, @forwardmoving.) I feel compelled to say that when I read that about you collecting posts or clicks or whatever, I literally laughed out loud. Yeah, I don’t think that’s your thing. 
1 Like