@meglide My condolences.

interviewed by Fox News no less

@TaLoN132 Well, that is consequences. But in essence, the question becomes "who do you want to be?" Your actions reflect back on your identity. Do you want to be a liar?

If you lie under oath ONCE, only once, you are forever a liar.

@james j Just because I say "I don't think these ballots were sent fairly" doesn't mean the ballot is disputed. Otherwise there's no reason either party can't just lawyer up and complain about ballots

If noone knows? Doesnt matter. You are still a liar. And you know it. And because you know it, you will project it.

At this time, unless something really big happens in the courts, there's no reason for states to not certify their votes and send electors

If you start down that path of decay, clawing your way back up is so much more difficult than not starting on it. Furthermore, some of these paths have doors that slam shut behind you. @TaLoN132

Deadlines are deadlines and December 14th will come. Unlike the general election, that election doesn't get to drag out for an extra month

@Elzam The Trump team just filed a Hail Mary appeal in PA.

@Elzam he can bribe or convince state politicians to not certify the election and just make them claim the votes are disputed. He did this with the two electors in Michigan, they tried to rescind their certification after a phone call from trump

There is still time for him to make calls

I mean he prob won’t be successful but the act alone should put into question what kind of non democratic entities we have in the white house

If the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals overturns the ruling on that ridiculous case, I will support packing that court. That case was embarrassing. They didn't even Spell Check. I mean, really?

Yeah at this rate there republicans have zero moral standing to dispute court packing, especially if it’s just to even it out

Well bribery is illegal

Which is fair I think

Are you suggesting that we're going to start accepting outcomes which were obtained by criminal acts?

Do you think the American people will not hold these people accountable?

The rules were in place because they envisioned a multiparty system where one candidate might not get a majority. They could have legislated a run-off, they chose the House thinking it was uncorruptable. Little did they know that the House would be artificially capped at 435 members. For our current population, they figured we'd have over 10K members of the House.

I don't think that's fair no.

The left has had positions in history with a stacked court.

As have republicans.

I don’t think the trump base will recognize (or not be be willing to overlook ) the lengths trump would be willing to go to get re elected, also he isn’t gonna telegraph he is bribing someone so it’s not something the public would know about if he does it. It’s just a possibility

You can't just change the game because you don't like the outcome.

@Maw it’s wouldn’t be changing the game, it’s would be adjusting for hypocrisy

It's a possibility that Santa Claus is real but I don't leave my Christmas tree out

Back to a neutral starting point

What?

No, absolutely not.

This is not the precedent you want to set.

I think a lot of people are overblowing this election. It plays out, Biden wins, he wins. nbd. Try again in 2 and in 4 years

It’s also a possibility that trump can bribe someone, or convince someone to not certify the election. Doesn’t involve any magic @Elzam

Dems tried this multiple times and it's backfired on them when republicans did it in return numerous times.

please don't spam the election channel with left-right philosophy

@nachik, you just advanced to level 1!

I wasn't saying it wasn't possible without magic. I was just pointing out that we don't typically take actions based on statistically unlikely outcomes

@nachik I thought that was how elections were conducted?

@Maw precedent has been blown out of the water , again how is evening out the courts after the hypocrisy the senate pulled not fair. Neutral is fair

@Maw 20 of the last 24 nominations for SCOTUS have been from Republicans. That being said, I don't think it has ever been stacked with a multi-vote majority. Until 4 years ago, Presidents followed the precedent of trying to keep a balanced court.

In grad school I had to calculate the probability of one of my electrons being on the moon. I'm not panicking because I don't have a space suit