The official process is chugging along properly just as it always has. We have to wait till December for the Electoral College to make a decision. Why? Why don't they just read the news and decide based on that to appease the masses? Because robust processes aren't robust if you skip them!
Plenty of people denies the last president-elect after that election too. But the system kept on working because it's stable.
Can you point to any time since the adoption of the Presidential Transition Act of 1963 that the GSA has waited until Electoral College vote to begin the transition process as required by law, or, in the alternative, provide any legal argument as to why you believe that every Presidential Transition since then has been conducted illegally?
> Plenty of people denies the last president-elect after that election too.
Yes, sure, but not the people legally mandated to facilitate the transition, in order to protect continuity and effectiveness of government operations and national security.
You're missing the point. Usually the transition happened early because the winner and the loser agreed on who had won. At this time, the official results are still in doubt. Therefore there isn't a reason to begin official transition.
according to you.
Wanting your guy to "win" is not a justification for disenfranchising people who feel differently or abandoning legal process.
And Biden isn't "my" guy. I don't particularly want him. (Didn't want Trump, either, and I got them both, one after the other.)
And: "win"? Biden won. No "quotes" about it.
Thats your perspective. The law says differently.
> The objective reality is that there is no path to a Trump victory.
In fact that's not the case, although I can understand how you would feel that way, since the media has been negligent in informing the public about the facts.
> All that's left is Trump desperately trying to somehow prevent the inevitable, and looking hopeless, desperate, and delusional in the process. That's the reality.
No, that's a picture painted by partisans who are hoping to bully people into accepting their preferred outcome prematurely.
> And: "win"? Biden won. No "quotes" about it.
The winner won't be official until electors are chosen. Thats how the system works. Although I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you would have called Al Gore delusional at this stage of the process in 2000 as well.
Thanks for the reply.
Trump has legal remedies, and he's filed suits. But those suits don't add up to enough votes in enough states to change the result.
They come from states based on what the state legislature decides.
> But I'm pretty sure you knew that. You're clinging to the hope that things will change.
I'm actually just explaining the legal process here since so many people seem to think the president is elected by the media.
> Trump has legal remedies, and he's filed suits. But those suits don't add up to enough votes in enough states to change the result.
Perhaps so. We'll see, just like in 2000.
This whole thing is such a farce. Trump has been claiming massive voter fraud with no evidence since 2016 (actually he also claimed it in 2012 when Obama won). He started claiming it a day after the election and has yet to produce any evidence. While every Secretary of State says there’s no evidence of massive voter fraud. And pointing this out and that trumps claims are baseless, which is all purely factual, has somehow become biased.
Actually the president is not chosen by the popular vote. You may not like how our democracy chooses presidents but that doesn't change facts.
> There’s no reason to think the vote totals are going to change. In 2016, Trump was also referred to as president elect at this point.
In 2016 the other contestant had conceded.
> Or were you very careful to correct anyone that said Trump had won in 2016 and pointed out that it wasn’t actually decided until the election was certified?
I'm pretty sure I asked what makes him President-elect. Do you have an answer?
> Trump has been claiming massive voter fraud with no evidence since 2016
What kind of evidence would you accept?
> He started claiming it a day after the election and has yet to produce any evidence.
Videos of ballot fraud and sworn affidavits are evidence.
> While every Secretary of State says there’s no evidence of massive voter fraud. And pointing this out and that trumps claims are baseless, which is all purely factual, has somehow become biased.
The bias is insisting that there is no evidence when there is evidence.
I was not referring to the popular vote, by the current vote count Biden wins enough electoral votes to be the next president.
> In 2016 the other contestant had conceded.
Curious, conceding also has no constitutional bearing on who the next president is. But, that's sufficient to you, as opposed to all of the votes having being counted and it being clear who the winner is.
> Videos of ballot fraud and sworn affidavits are evidence. > The bias is insisting that there is no evidence when there is evidence.
Where is this evidence and why has it not shown up in any of these court cases. Rudy and Powell just had an absurd press conference, claiming all sorts of voter fraud. The trump campaign's lawsuit in Pennsylvania, that Rudy personally argued, was just dismissed, let me quote the Judge:
> In other words, Plaintiffs ask this Court to disenfranchise almost seven million voters. This Court has been unable to find any case in which a plaintiff has sought such a drastic remedy in the contest of an election, in terms of the sheer volume of votes asked to be invalidated. One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption, such that this Court would have no option but to regrettably grant the proposed injunctive relief despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens. That has not happened. Instead, this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence.
It is not bias to say there's no evidence, when time and time again, it's shown in court, that there's no evidence.
Those vote counts are provisional until certified and some are in the process of being challenged based on evidence of fraud. Illegal ballots negate legal votes and so for election integrity it is very important that the government be seen to take matters of election integrity seriously and prevent the addition of illegal ballots from distorting the results.
> Curious, conceding also has no constitutional bearing on who the next president is.
Concession means that the person with standing to contest the provisional results has accepted them. Therefore the lack of a possibility of meaningful challenge allows the presumptive victor to move forward. In this case that has not happened so there is no reason to jump to conclusions and allow a person who may not have won to begin transitioning to duties he will not carry out.
> But, that's sufficient to you, as opposed to all of the votes having being counted and it being clear who the winner is.
My opinion is not at issue here. I'm merely explaining the relevant factors that result in the differences from 2016 to 2020 that you were concerned about.
> Where is this evidence and why has it not shown up in any of these court cases.
You have not seen the sworn affidavits? Below are links so you can inform yourself. How unfortunate that our famously free press has not informed the public of this :(
> despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens.
I believe the contention of the trump campaign is that those votes were not cast by citizens, or if they were, they were illegally cast. That would mean the negative impact on the citizens would be felt by allowing these votes to be counted.
At least we are confident that the Trump administration did a better job preventing the Russians from interfering than did President Obama who famously scolded Mitt Romney for considering the Russians to be a threat to our democracy.
> It is not bias to say there's no evidence, when time and time again, it's shown in court, that there's no evidence.
You don't think sworn witness statements count as evidence? You don't think that people risking perjury to testify about violations of election law that they personally witnessed are evidence? Or are you relying on the press to inform you of evidence and taking their statements that there is no evidence at face value? Or are you attempting to verify their statements, but having trouble locating the sworn affidavits because everything that comes up on a search engine when you use terms "trump lawsuit affidavit" is blogspam falsely claiming there is no evidence?
[0] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18618673/31/8/donald-j-...
[1] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18618673/31/10/donald-j...
[2] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18618673/31/9/donald-j-...
[3] https://www.dropbox.com/s/4f5gvx6oh9zskvf/2020-11-17%20TRO%2...
[4] https://gellerreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/gov.usco...