The ship hasn't sailed on that? Just saying.

convincing the state legislatures, or imposing martial law and military tribunes

@Adam135 that is process is it not?

@busillis, you just advanced to level 27!

Seems like state legis are out but u forgot scotus

imposing martial law? It's kinda extreme

Currently that is the most reasonable stance. Past elections have different circumstances and with the passage of time they become more finalized. In a few weeks I will have moved my position. I think its not the right time to assert either way today.

He did this?

Not yet a few advisors want it

I think Lincoln was the last one to do it to subvert the press that favored southern sympathies but 🤷

No, but who's to say he won't if he gets desperate enough, Michael Flynn has already requested him to do so, and many of his staunchest supporters as well

Bush sued to stop the recount under the Equal Protection clause, I think. The lower courts had ruled that they could recount the counties that Gore requested using a standard to account for the hanging/dimpled chads in an effort to better represent the will of the people in those counties. Bush's team successfully argued that it was not fair to only recount the counties that Gore wanted using the new standards, because there was no way to know if the new rules would have changed the results in the rest of the state. At that point, it was too late for Gore to ask them to recount the entire state.

Are you aware of this? https://www.baltimoresun.com/features/retro-baltimore/bs-fe-retro-ballots-20200903-45bwp36t2bfvvmiy3pmpca7zku-story.html

I just said Lincoln was the last president I could think of to have exercised that power....

Tried and true methods of ballot harvesting. haha

I think he meant the mailin ballot fraud part haha

So it turned out to be so in this case? Fraud that is.

@Corndog this isn’t about circumstances it’s about the dichotomy you presented. Proving a election not fraudulent or fraudulent. We have never proven a election not fraudulent as a barrier to becoming president. That’s why using your criteria trump can’t be president because it was never proven he won without fraud.

The only thing I've yet to see is fraud or impropriety that happened to extent to change the outcome in these states.

In the Lincoln case

How did Trump win fraudulently in 2016?

Massive fraud.

@Adam135 I’m using his criteria of having to prove a election non fraudulent

Absolutely, if actual proof is found that massive fraud tipped the balance in the race, no reasonable American would ignore it.

It's hard to say, because these aren't exactly criminal proceedings

I didn’t present that dichotomy sorry.

👍

Have you done a deep dive into this ? The Lincoln deal?

I've read parts of it, I know Lincoln was often remembered as honest, ethical but hard fought leader, but there's a side of him most people glaze over.

I know my mom hates Lincoln

He knew how dirty politics was, he more or less, a means to justify the end for the greater good sorta person

Based off of that it's probably not true.

He reimbursed politicians heavily for voting in his favor .

I'm kinda curious I don't see too many countersuits to the trump campaign.

He suppressed freedom of the press during times in his term

Like dominion suing for defamation.

There have been a couple, from the ACLU and the lincoln project

Dude just trying to run out the clock

To have a contingent election

Any kind of actual finding isn't going to help the case

I think for that they would need to prove their machines are more secure than BofA atms