What should Biden do after he wins? (1 Viewer)

[The_Doc_Man]

If not, why isn't the leader of winning party the president?

In the USA, we have a tri-fold government. Your "Prime Minister" normally should be equivalent to our "Speaker of the House" if I understand your structure even approximately. But your PM is the leader of the representative body and the head of your civil service bureaucracy if I read it correctly. Your titular head of state is HRH Elizabeth II, yes?

Here we separately elect our head of state because our system involves what we call "checks and balances." Our highest judiciary members are appointed for life after approval by the Senate. At least in theory, they become "above politics" though I'm sure they can't escape their pasts completely. Our president is the chief executive who is in charge of the individual departments that oversee and enforce certain laws; i.e. the President runs the bureaucracy. And it is our two-chambered congress that actually makes the laws.

This tripartite government means that if the chambers of Congress disagree, nothing gets done. If the Congress barely passes new legislation and the President disagrees, it gets blocked. And if something egregious is done, the Supreme Court can step in and fix it somehow. In direct response to your question, the leader of the winning party will probably be someone in either the House or the Senate, the two Congressional chambers. Whoever is in charge of the party doesn't actually have to be elected to office, though.

I know our system can be complex to outsiders, but actually the founding fathers intentionally made it more complex because they didn't want a Congress that would pass laws for the sake of passing laws. The hope was that if Congress could agree on something, it must have been important.

Unfortunately, in the state of Louisiana, our STATE congress sometimes does exactly what they shouldn't - i.e. pass laws for the sake of passing laws. I guess they want to point to the laws and say "See what I did?" They are a bunch of losers who should have been voted out of office long ago. And sadly, the U.S. Congress doesn't have a stellar track record for the last couple of years either.

 

[Jon]

The Queen is the head of state but only as a figurehead. The Prime Minister has the real power. During historical times, it might have been different, with Kings and Queens making up the rules as they go alone!

 

[moke123]

Here's one for ya.
I've been looking for the article I read on it but havent found it yet so i'll try to lay it out best I can remember.

expand this for background:

Article I, section 3, clause 5 of the Constitution permits senators to select a President pro tempore to fill in as Presiding Officer when the Vice President is unable to do so. Thus the majority makes the selection of the President pro tempore.

In contrast to the Speaker, who is chosen by the entire House membership, the majority leader is not selected via a vote of the full Senate. Rather, the floor leader of the party that controls most of the Senate’s seats becomes the majority leader by default.

The majority leader’s power is derived from the fact that his colleagues defer to him to order the chamber’s deliberations. But the leader’s ability to do that job depends on his being recognized first by the President pro tempore (or the Vice President depending on who is presiding).

Since any member can technically make a motion to consider legislation or a nomination under the Senate’s rules, being the first to do so enables the majority leader to set the schedule and control the agenda to a limited degree.

Priority of recognition also allows the leader to block votes on undesirable amendments. The ability to be recognized first before other members enables the majority leader to “fill the amendment tree,” or offer the maximum allowable number of amendments to legislation, and file cloture on a bill before other senators have a chance to debate the measure and offer amendments.

The right of recognition is thus the foundation on which leadership power is based in the contemporary Senate.

Yet the majority leader’s priority of recognition ultimately depends on the Vice President.

The leader was first granted priority of recognition in 1937 pursuant to a ruling made by Vice President John (“Cactus Jack”) Nance Garner while presiding over the Senate. But the 1937 ruling is not irreversible. Any Vice President presiding over the Senate in the future could just as easily break with past practice and recognize another senator in lieu of the Majority Leader.

So the gist of the article I read examined the fact that the power of the majority leader is derived from senate tradition. It has always assumed that the Vice President is too busy to preside over the senate. It detailed the traditions that have been set aside during the trump presidency and It laid out a framework wherein Kamala Harris can reclaim her Presiding Officer status and therefore the right of recognition, scheduling, etc. effectively assuming control over the senate without having the majority.

Sounds good right?

 

[Pat Hartman]

Yes that is what a judges decision is called.

I know that. But it is still just an opinion NOT fact.

Yes based on the law. Is it fair to disenfranchise 7 million votes for the 2 which were subject of the lawsuit?

ABSOLUTELY when the Constitution was violated! The Constitution is very specific on who gets to make law regarding elections and it is NOT judges or members of the Executive branch. ONLY the legislature can make laws regarding how elections are conducted. If you can't get the legislature to see things your way, you don't just get to impose an Executive order or get a judge to write an OPINION.

Yes, all states support absentee ballots but handling a couple of thousand ballots by mail is quite different from handling hundreds of thousands or even millions. Just because your volume is up doesn't mean you can cut corners or change the rules and the states that implemented optional mail in voting just months before the election did just that. They changed the rules by fiat rather than by passing laws. The Supreme Court is completely responsible for the current fiasco. They had an opportunity earlier this year to remind the states that the Constitution sets the rules for elections and that they would not support deviations from that.

When you vote in person they cross your name off the list to indicate you voted. They do the same thing with absentee ballots.

So, you think that corruption is not possible? You think that people without ID are never allowed to vote? You think that dead people don't vote? You think that people don't vote in multiple precincts? You think that people processing the mail in ballots don't "fix" them? You think that people don't run batches of ballots favorable to their "guy" through multiple times? You think the DOMINION software does not allow for vote changing even though their manual says it does? I have a bridge I can sell you.

There was an election fraud report made about 15 years ago by Jimmy Carter and James Baker regarding the problems with voting in the previous election. It is literally a playbook for what happened during this election. Sadly Bush just filed it and didn't act on it nor did Obama. Jimmy Carter went on to make this his life's work to monitor elections in foreign countries.

I'm going to ask again, why are you so content to not even investigate the possibility of fraud? The big instances of corruption in the past have been mostly about local races. Manipulating state and federal races requires involving a whole lot of people in the conspiracy. If I hadn't seen the press, social media, Congress, the FBI, the CIA, and the DOJ all join arms and obstruct Trump at every turn, I too would be hard pressed to believe that nationwide election fraud was possible. I've changed my mind. The left would do absolutely anything to stop Trump from getting reelected so I believe that they are actually capable of orchestrating this. This fraud involved the six swing states where conveniently the election process was controlled by the Democrats so it is not actually widespread. It is the smallest possible circle that would have the desired effect given the state of the current electoral map. There was no need to bump up the counts in Connecticut, it was voting for Biden even though the lines of his puppet masters' control are visible plus he might be guilty of treason at worst or campaign finance violations and tax evasion at best. Just look how stupid the residents of Bridgeport, CT are.
Joe Ganim - Wikipedia
At least the Democrats haven't been stupid enough to nominate him for Governor but he's tried several times.

We will probably never find evidence of fraud using the Dominion software. The machines have not been taken into custody and so the corrupt software, if it had been loaded has since been replaced. However, that means that the counts won't match if they use honest software to count them this time. In a normal recount, you wouldn't expect more than a few hundred votes difference but in this case, I'm guessing that we'll see the election actually swing. The Dominion people seem to have lawyered up and moved their office. I'm sure they're innocent though. They're acting like innocent people. They've offered machines and software for inspection, they've offered to make statements, OH wait! None of that has happened.

 

[moke123]

The Constitution is very specific on who gets to make law regarding elections

Yes, it left it to the states.

you don't just get to impose an Executive order or get a judge to write an OPINION.

So you are saying Trump doesn't just get a judge to overturn an election?

You think the DOMINION software does not allow for vote changing even though their manual says it does?

Yea so says Sidney Powell who's as crazy as a loon. Trump even fired her.

But according to Powell, it’s the fraud-enabling software that’s responsible. She said the company’s own manual explains how votes can be “wiped away,” using a feature “that allows you to drag and drop Trump votes to a separate folder and then delete that folder.

You think that people without ID are never allowed to vote?

I've never had to show ID.

There was an election fraud report made about 15 years ago by Jimmy Carter and James Baker

You mean these guys who are calling for expanded Mail in voting? https://www.cartercenter.org/news/pr/2020/united-states-050620.html

We will probably never find evidence of fraud using the Dominion software. The machines have not been taken into custody and so the corrupt software,

Cant find what isn't there. The machines are all tested and certified before any election and I believe some states also test afterwards.

QAnon’s Dominion voter fraud conspiracy theory reaches the president

Joe Biden's win and the disintegration of the broader QAnon narrative do not spell the end of the broader conspiracy ecosystem it has built.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[Pat Hartman]

I've never had to show ID.

And you don't see that as a problem? Does the clerk at least cross out your name so you can only vote once or does your state let you vote as many times as you want? Try to get into a federal building without a photo ID or on a plane.

The nonpartisan 2005 Commission on Federal Election Reform, co-chaired by former U.S. President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, noted among its many findings and recommendations that because it takes place outside the regulated environment of local polling locations, voting by mail creates increased logistical challenges and the potential for vote fraud, especially if safeguards are lacking or when candidates or political party activists are allowed to handle mail-in or absentee ballots.

The problem with the "emergency" switch is the lack of control. There are ways to ensure safety with mail in votes. No one bothered though.

Cant find what isn't there. The machines are all tested and certified before any election and I believe some states also test afterwards.

Then your people will stop obstructing the examination because they have nothing to hide. That works for me.

So you are saying Trump doesn't just get a judge to overturn an election?

They don't get to overturn the Constitution unless of course they are the "Supremes" Our constitution with all amendments used to be ~ 135 pages. Now it is over 3,000. That's because the Supreme Court which is not authorized to change the Constitution, does and Congress goes along with the joke. The Constitution says it may only be changed by passing Amendments by 3/4 of all the states but the Supreme Court whish was intended to uphold the Constitution and keep the Executive and Legislative branches from over stepping has itself gone out of control.

There is a grass-roots movement afoot which is moving along the path to being passed by 2/3 of the state legislatures. We may finally see some positive changes if that movement succeeds.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I've never had to show ID.

Even in little old backwoods suburban New Orleans, the home of corrupt politicians, and not more than 10 miles from the swamps of the Atchafalaya basin, we have picture ID voting. Neither know nor care where you are, but I've seen the process in Louisiana and it would be really hard to commit double-dip or dead-man frauds here.

It takes a couple of polling commissioners with vision correctable to 20/20 because of the ID requirement, but the process seems to me to be good enough to stop several kinds of fraud. I have to sign. The commissioner has to initial my entry in the voter list and then write the page and line numbers from the book where I signed in. I have to show a current form of ID with a picture. Louisiana will issue state identification cards for non-drivers, and I know this because we helped my mother-in-law get one. In my case, I have a "Real ID" driver's license, but while I still had one, my government badge with my security clearance notice would have been legal as an ID for voting purposes.

 

[Galaxiom]

I know that. But it is still just an opinion NOT fact.

ABSOLUTELY when the Constitution was violated! The Constitution is very specific on who gets to make law regarding elections and it is NOT judges or members of the Executive branch.

Regardless of whatever happened leading up to the process, there is also a law that voters cannot be disenfranchised where they followed the instructions they were given by the authorities in good faith.

Trump advised his supporters not to use the mail in option but to vote on the day. Clearly he had planned to disenfranchise millions of Democrat voters right from the beginning. He is an unprincipled arsehole and it was he who was intent on stealing the election.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Well, let us know what your real opinion is You are entitled to it but wrong nevertheless.

Trump isn't going to win by disenfranchising voters, he's going to win because the Dems stuffed the ballot box.

 

[Steve R.]

Regardless of whatever happened leading up to the process, there is also a law that voters cannot be disenfranchised where they followed the instructions they were given by the authorities in good faith.

Trump advised his supporters not to use the mail in option but to vote on the day. Clearly he had planned to disenfranchise millions of Democrat voters right from the beginning. He is an unprincipled arsehole and it was he who was intent on stealing the election.

Really? Where is your evidence that Trump had "planned to to disenfranchise millions of Democrat voters right from the beginning." I guess then, that you won't mind me proclaiming that Sidney Powell has successfully proven that the Dominion Software voting machines were "fixed" by the Democrats to give Biden the win.

Next, if you are concerned about "disenfranchisement". Why is it that the Democrats obstruct virtually every attempt to vet the legitimacy of the person voting. Examples, not cleaning-up the voter roles, no ID requirements, same day registration/voting, and registration through the simple act of getting a drivers license without citizenship verification. Finally there is the issue of mailing out unsolicited ballots to all residents. So how do you verify that the ballot received actually came from a person legally entitled to vote?

If Democrats were actually concerned about the integrity of the voting process, they would support voter identification and in person voting. So Democratic assertions that they are concerned about voting integrity is bunk.

The "left" claims that the US, on a variety of issues, needs to be in conformance with the rest of the worlds. Well, from what I am hearing, the method of voting currently being allowed in the US would not be tolerated in the rest of the world due to the unfettered opportunities for fraud. Note this comment by @Anakardian resides in Denmark.

There is no need to register for voting. If you are allowed to vote, you get the paper with instructions on where you need to go to vote.
On the election day, you go to the indicated place, usually the local school where a large room is temporarily converted to house the setup.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Couldn't agree more. They didn't produce with the Hunter's Laptop fiasco and now this

"Game over man! ... Bill Paxton

 

[moke123]

And you don't see that as a problem? Does the clerk at least cross out your name so you can only vote once or does your state let you vote as many times as you want?

No, she even uses a ruler to make a nice straight line.

Try to get into a federal building without a photo ID or on a plane.

Voting is a right and a priveledge. Flying? not so much.

Then your people will stop obstructing the examination because they have nothing to hide. That works for me.

My People? Who is obstructing? I haven't heard a word about that. Source please.

Our constitution with all amendments used to be ~ 135 pages. Now it is over 3,000.

The Constitution contains 4,543 words, including the signatures and has four sheets, 28-3/4 inches by 23-5/8 inches each. It contains 7,591 words including the 27 amendments.

The Constitution says it may only be changed by passing Amendments by 3/4 of all the states but the Supreme Court whish was intended to uphold the Constitution and keep the Executive and Legislative branches from over stepping has itself gone out of control.

The Supreme Court was intended to interpret the constitution. I do agree it is out of control. Time to expand it and set term limits.

Why is it that the Democrats obstruct virtually every attempt to vet the legitimacy of the person voting. Examples, not cleaning-up the voter roles, no ID requirements, same day registration/voting, and registration through the simple act of getting a drivers license without citizenship verification. Finally there is the issue of mailing out unsolicited ballots to all residents. So how do you verify that the ballot received actually came from a person legally entitled to vote?

And you don't see that as a problem? Does the clerk at least cross out your name so you can only vote once or does your state let you vote as many times as you want? Try to get into a federal building without a photo ID or on a plane.

Good news Pat. CT. is part of ERIC so your vote is safe. Steve- maybe you should lobby yours to join unless you support making little old ladies with no money to go get a license.

 

[Isaac]

I think it's bad that PA changed their postmark date without the legislature approving. I hope (and think they will, actually) win that particular one.
Now I may have mis-stated the terms, but you know which issue I am referring to.

 

[Isaac]

as long as their leader is statesmanlike, sensible and contributes to world issues

Like this guy?

 

[Bandit]

President-elect Joe Biden is now busy building out his Cabinet as he prepares for his time in the White House.

 

[ColinEssex]

When Biden is installed in the Oval Office, he could shut the lunatic Orangeman in the toilet if he is still refusing to go and is still acting like a spoilt child having a paddy. I'm sure the not so well read Trump supporters will give him food, I doubt if his widow-in-waiting will hang around.
Col

 

[moke123]

Trump supporters will give him food

Both DoorDash and UberEats deliver from McDonalds and KFC so Rump can feed himself. He'll just want his rubes to pay for it.

 

[moke123]

I think it's bad that PA changed their postmark date without the legislature approving. I hope (and think they will, actually) win that particular one.
Now I may have mis-stated the terms, but you know which issue I am referring to.

yes you did mis-state it. The courts ruled that if it was postmark by election date and recieved within a few days it was ok . Blame the postmaster for destroying the sorting machines.

 

[Steve R.]

When Biden is installed in the Oval Office, he could shut the lunatic Orangeman in the toilet if he is still refusing to go and is still acting like a spoilt child having a paddy. I'm sure the not so well read Trump supporters will give him food, I doubt if his widow-in-waiting will hang around.

Another case of relative reality. The Democratic Party, to which Biden belongs, has unjustly obstructed Trump for four years. Even using the power of the state to pursue false charges against Trump. Essentially you appear to be advocating that once Biden gets in, that the all the prior unjust actions be, once again, initiated. Just like the old Soviet Union or other third world countries. So if you are advocating that America pursue unjust third world justice, you may wish to reconsider your motto: "America is pregnant with promises and anticipation, but is murdered by the hand of the inevitable."

Go ahead and hate Trump if you want, but consider the alternative. Biden is just an artificial construct, a puppet of special interest groups. One of them possibly being China. Biden is likely to be much worse than Trump.

 

[Isaac]

and recieved within a few days it was ok

No, no no ... you glossed over the part I thought it was clear that I was referring to. the "within a few days".

The "few days" was changed by someone other than the legislature, and that's wrong. No matter what the court held. Courts can be wrong. (As any appellate judge will tell you).