Chris Christie, YES PLEASE!

All of which was alluded to in the ECA, which Congress moved to modify in order to remove the ambiguity it contained to allow Trump to attempt it. Nothing illegal or undemocratic about it. Even if Pence followed the plan it wouldn't have overthrown our Democracy. Our Democracy is more elaborate than just one branch of the government.

 

The ECA literally forbids ALL of this. Which is part of why your side tried to get it declared unconstitutional. Yes, it's absolutely illegal, undemocratic, and in violation of both the Constitution and the ECA. The ECA FLAT OUT ****ING SAYS THAT THE ONLY EC VOTES THAT CAN BE COUNTED ARE THOSE APPROVED BY THE STATE EXECUTIVE UNDER THE SEAL OF THE STATE. ALL of Trump's plans involved violating this. We both know what happens next.

 

You start with the ad homs?

 

That's not what ad hom means. Why did your side try to get the ECA declared unconstitutional?

 

We've already established that your understanding of ad homs is very bad.

 

I'm sorry you feel that way. But why do you refuse to actually discuss the ECA when pretending to care about the ECA? I'm willing to talk about the ECA. You aren't. Hell, I've quoted it in the past.

 

I've already discussed the ECA (in fact I brought it up). Why don't you just stop with the deflections of saying I haven't? I'm not impressed with this game.

 

So you didn't read the part about which EC votes count and which don't? Why didn't you read that part? And why did your side try to get the ECA declared unconstitutional over this? I'm not impressed with your refusal to actually read the ECA.

 

@Overitall ""certified by the executive of the State, under the seal thereof" Please read that.

 

What makes you think I haven't read it? You're starting to slip into your ad hom mode.

 

Please quote it.

 

What makes me think that you haven't read it is that you think that the attempts previously mentioned are legal under it when, in fact, the ECA says "certified by the executive of the State, under the seal thereof." There's a reason why your side tried to get the ECA declared unconstitutional.

 

If the last several election cycles haven't clued people in on what America's reality is, then wallow in it for another 2 or more years.

The voters have been speaking since 2018.

But, what I meant, is the candidates in the R party, many of them have been out of touch. The voters only vote for the one option they have. If they are partisan.

In solid red states, that's not an issue.
But in purple states, that is not working lately. And Nationally, it's been trending blue.

 

That's what those little " symbols mean. It's a quote. Here you go again: "certified by the executive of the State, under the seal thereof" I do appreciate you asking me to quote something for you when you are literally quoting me quoting it. That's some Inception level ****.

 

It's really very simple. Congress modified the Act because they recognized its ambiguity made it possible for Trump's team to try to implement it. What part of their reasoning for the modification aren't you understanding?

 

You're quoting out of context. Sentences don't work that way.

 

What did I get wrong? Be specific?

 

So you really don't know how to describe "reality". Got it!

 

By all means, make him the 2024 R party candidate.
I won't mind 1 bit.

 

Congress isn't trying to change the part I quoted so far as I know. What are they changing about it and why did your side try to get the ECA declared unconstitutional?

 

Nope.

 

Look it up.

 

As I said, voters describe reality.

At least on the issues that matter when they vote.
Keep on stamping out abortion. See how far that goes outside the solid red states.

 

I have. Why won't you?

 

In that case the Trump supporters have described it. The reality is Trump is the candidate that reflects their ideology the most.