Posted on 11/06/2023 9:37:02 AM PST by Regulator
Oh, thank you, no. You’re the one who’s advocating a different understanding of the law than has been understood and implemented since passage of the 1887 Act. You have the burden of proof.
Their inserted editorial comments notwithstanding, this article from Wikipedia outlines the dipsy-do fliperoo that “traitor” Pence would have had to go through. Make more sense to you than the plain meaning of the law, now enacted as revision to the Act, that his job was just ministerial in counting the ballots as submitted? Seem a politically viable way to resolve the election? If so, please explain. Don’t forget to show your work.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastman_memos
“ You’re the one who’s advocating a different understanding of the law…”
False.
I have made no claim one way or the other.
I have only addressed your empty and childish rhetoric.
Can’t support your own claim, obviously.
Because it was childish rhetoric.
Coward. You asked for an explanation of why it was a fairy tale. The memos are right there. Did you read them? Do you think that was plausible scenario? Would that have been a tenable political thing to do? I’m on record: I never liked Mike Pence, from the day he was announced as the VP candidate. He shouldn’t have run, and I’m glad he’s gone. But I also don’t believe in bearing false witness against one’s neighbor, and every single person on this forum who calls him a traitor for his 1/6 activities should read the Eastman memos and explain why they think that strategy would have worked.
You call me a coward?
You won’t even explain your claim.
I made no claims.
You’re like the guy who says some crap and then when asked about it says prove me wrong.
UFO people but the pyramids.
Ok, what’s your evidence?
Prove me wrong.
That’s the level of your discourse.
I know nothing about what Eastman argued. You claim to and talk big but can’t back it up.
I might even agree with you that he made a poor argument. But you apparently are not even able to back up your sweeping rhetorically facile smug pronouncement
But the issue isn’t his argument, it’s his being persecuted for it under abuse of power.
I am not surprised to learn there is a great deal of similarity between members of corporate boards and average 5th graders.
But yes, corporate boards do in depth studies on how Legislatures select electors. It's important to a company's bottom line you know.
I wasn't aware of any, but maybe I’m just ignorant. When did that happen?
When the executive branch decided who the electors would be.
When the executive branch decided who the electors would be.
Can you cite any specific examples of this?
If only legislatures were expected to make a profit, perhaps they would do things in a similar fashion?
I don't know what Corporate boards have to do with our system of governance and how it is organized in accordance with the Constitution.
Can you cite any specific examples of this?
Brad Raffensperger.
2. Why do you assume that every corporate board is overseeing a for-profit corporation?
3. As Georgia’s Secretary of State, Raffensperger was the chairman of the state election board (there’s that “board” again). I presume he didn’t appoint himself to that position. In fact, I know for certain that he didn’t because the Georgia legislature changed the law in 2021 to remove that responsibility from the Secretary of State.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.