What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

President Trump suggests delaying the election (1 Viewer)

Just throwing this into the mix.

Seth Abramson

@SethAbramson

(ALERT) Mike Pompeo just testified under oath that *Barr* will decide if Trump—despite having no constitutional authority to do so—can *announce* he's moving the election. Read that sentence multiple times and then retweet this. We're witnessing a historic threat to rule of law.

 
To their credit, it appears that most of the non-administration GOPers have said the election will happen in November. Including McConnell - (from twitter) - "#BREAKING: @senatemajldr just told me over the phone that the election date is set in stone. He cited past crises taking place during an election."

 
Just throwing this into the mix.

Seth Abramson

@SethAbramson

(ALERT) Mike Pompeo just testified under oath that *Barr* will decide if Trump—despite having no constitutional authority to do so—can *announce* he's moving the election. Read that sentence multiple times and then retweet this. We're witnessing a historic threat to rule of law.
No attempts at all to be an authoritarian here...nope...

 
Just throwing this into the mix.

Seth Abramson

@SethAbramson

(ALERT) Mike Pompeo just testified under oath that *Barr* will decide if Trump—despite having no constitutional authority to do so—can *announce* he's moving the election. Read that sentence multiple times and then retweet this. We're witnessing a historic threat to rule of law.
yeah that's what i figured.

as i posted up thread,  laws have no power, people have power to enforce them or not.

i've known this for a long time, but it's been really in your face since Barr was appointed.

 
  • Thanks
Reactions: JAA
just meant that the volume of votes for a national level will be much higher than a local candidate based election.
yeah, like always

We'd like to see all valid votes counted, particularly those from our overseas service members.
who is this we?  because trump and plenty of republicans are campaigning against having mail-in votes counted.

and nice, wrapping yourself in the military.  why do we particularly want votes from our overseas service members counted?

 
Just throwing this into the mix.

Seth Abramson

@SethAbramson

(ALERT) Mike Pompeo just testified under oath that *Barr* will decide if Trump—despite having no constitutional authority to do so—can *announce* he's moving the election. Read that sentence multiple times and then retweet this. We're witnessing a historic threat to rule of law.
I agree with Pompeo here, and I don't even think he needs Barr's approval.

Trump can also *announce* he's a teenage vampire princess from Titan, the moon of Jupiter.

 
There would be no House of Representatives because the 20th Amendment says that House and Senate terms end on January 3rd. Then succession goes to the President Pro Tem of the Senate. But here is where it gets interesting. All the seats up for re-election would not be standing Senators anymore, and the remaining Senators would be 33-30 in favor of Democrats. So they could elect a new President Pro Tem, most likely Biden. (Edit- duh, Biden hasn't been a Senator for 11 years, could be any Democratic Senator they elect).
BUT, the 17th amendment has a provision where any vacant Senate seats can be filled by the State Executives, provided allowed by their legislatures, so most of those "empty" senate seats could probably just be filled by Governor appointments...

 
I just meant that the volume of votes for a national level will be much higher than a local candidate based election.  

Polling procedures, budgets, etc. are a state issue, for the most part.  It is their responsibility to ensure this goes well.  From what I read from the USPS they are ready for this mail volume to come through - so hopefully that won't be an issue.  We'd like to see all valid votes counted, particularly those from our overseas service members.
True, but transitioning to a mostly mail-in election in this short of a timeframe is going to be incredibly difficult for nearly all states. Plus, all of their budgets (which by law must be balanced) are getting slammed by the pandemic, so there are no extra resources to devote to electoral systems. This is clearly a situation where the Federal government needs to help out

 
Don't cower:

I’ve seen plenty of comments today on the order of “That’s the law? Since when does Trump follow the law?” “You think now he’s going to start paying attention to the constitution?”

I understand everyone is afraid. But this is loser talk.

[...]

All of this comes from Trump’s weakness rather than strength. A sinking ship. The answer in any trial of strength or right is to maintain the initiative rather than cower. Every reporter working a beat today should be asking Republican elected officials … asking isn’t even the right work – giving Republican elected officials their one chance to denounce and disassociate themselves from the President’s words. They have one chance. Tomorrow won’t cut it. If they want to go down with the President’s sinking ship, get their answer and lock them in. Democrats should be prepping ads about how Joni Ernst refused to back holding the election in November. She was ready to sign on. I hope her opponent is prepping that ad right now.

 
This is probably a good time to remind people that it was not even four months ago when a Democratic governor actually tried to do this, and everybody was angry at the state supreme court for not going along.

Also, one of the people on Biden's VP short list refused to concede defeat in the election that she is famous for having lost.

Obviously this sort of thing is wrong regardless of the letter after the person's name, but it would be nice if we were consistent about it.
Primary vs. General...increase time for absentee balloting vs postpone completely...in the height of the pandemic vs. November.

Want more differences...I can come up with several.

 
You left out that "April" has five letters vs. November having eight.  That's just as relevant as the stuff you mentioned.
Umm...no, quite sure what we know now vs this and precautions we can make with the proper amount of time to prepare and height of the pandemic and all of that are far more relevant.

Doesn't seem like a very honest attempt at discussion here...so have a nice one.

 
This is probably a good time to remind people that it was not even four months ago when a Democratic governor actually tried to do this, and everybody was angry at the state supreme court for not going along.

Also, one of the people on Biden's VP short list refused to concede defeat in the election that she is famous for having lost.

Obviously this sort of thing is wrong regardless of the letter after the person's name, but it would be nice if we were consistent about it.
Come on, IK, even you can admit that there's a difference between "refuses to use the word 'concede'" and "refuses to leave office".

 
This is probably a good time to remind people that it was not even four months ago when a Democratic governor actually tried to do this, and everybody was angry at the state supreme court for not going along.

Also, one of the people on Biden's VP short list refused to concede defeat in the election that she is famous for having lost.

Obviously this sort of thing is wrong regardless of the letter after the person's name, but it would be nice if we were consistent about it.
Do you think that Trump's tweet means "postpone the election (and I will stay in office longer)?"  If so, that seems like a pretty significant difference from your two examples. 

 
This is probably a good time to remind people that it was not even four months ago when a Democratic governor actually tried to do this, and everybody was angry at the state supreme court for not going along.

Also, one of the people on Biden's VP short list refused to concede defeat in the election that she is famous for having lost.

Obviously this sort of thing is wrong regardless of the letter after the person's name, but it would be nice if we were consistent about it.
And other states already had postponed primaries, minor detail

 
This is probably a good time to remind people that it was not even four months ago when a Democratic governor actually tried to do this, and everybody was angry at the state supreme court for not going along.

Also, one of the people on Biden's VP short list refused to concede defeat in the election that she is famous for having lost.

Obviously this sort of thing is wrong regardless of the letter after the person's name, but it would be nice if we were consistent about it.
I applaud the attempt at sensibility, I fear it wont sit well with most 

 
That's what I meant (and I clarified above).  3 days of voting with polls open 12 hours/day.  Suggest that A-H come in the first day, etc.
I disagree with thatKind of scheduling scheduling, completely open like it is now. You were so close.

 
I am a relatively happy, employed, well fed suburbanite. As god as my witness if they try to pull this stuff I will burn this thing to the ground. 

It's been scary and getting scarier. The integrity of the election is my line in the sand. 

I'll consider myself a prisoner in an occupied country. 
Seriously, and I promise that I mean this in the nicest way...take a breath. Relax

Maybe take a break from the news/PSF for a few days 

 
Just throwing this into the mix.

Seth Abramson

@SethAbramson

(ALERT) Mike Pompeo just testified under oath that *Barr* will decide if Trump—despite having no constitutional authority to do so—can *announce* he's moving the election. Read that sentence multiple times and then retweet this. We're witnessing a historic threat to rule of law.
I assume this came during his questioning from Tim Kaine, and is a slight distortion of what was actually said, and the context in which it was said.

I'll see if I can find the clip, but Kaine asked Pompeo about the tweet, which came out sometime after the hearing had started - and Kaine asked if the President could do that.  Pompeo simply demurred and noted it was not his place to make those kind of legal decisions - those would come from the DOJ.

 
I assume this came during his questioning from Tim Kaine, and is a slight distortion of what was actually said, and the context in which it was said.

I'll see if I can find the clip, but Kaine asked Pompeo about the tweet, which came out sometime after the hearing had started - and Kaine asked if the President could do that.  Pompeo simply demurred and noted it was not his place to make those kind of legal decisions - those would come from the DOJ.
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1288847087950495749

 
BUT, the 17th amendment has a provision where any vacant Senate seats can be filled by the State Executives, provided allowed by their legislatures, so most of those "empty" senate seats could probably just be filled by Governor appointments...
I'll start writing my historical fiction piece right now.

 
Can we move the election up to tomorrow instead?
It's funny and got some laughs, but I had this same thought from a public health perspective. Here's the thing...COVID is spreading to more and more people and the trend looks like it's getting worse not better. If the prez truly believed the election date should be moved for the purpose of exposing fewer people...and, again, the trend looks like this will be worse after November than now...then he would be advocating to do the election earlier than November, like as soon as possible.

Whatever he's talking here, it about isn't because he cares about people, or COVID-19, or anything other than himself.

 
And other states already had postponed primaries, minor detail
It is actually a minor detail that doesn't change anything significantly.  Postponing elections because of a pandemic was a bad idea in April, it's a bad idea now, and it will be a bad idea in November.  

 
It is actually a minor detail that doesn't change anything significantly.  Postponing elections because of a pandemic was a bad idea in April, it's a bad idea now, and it will be a bad idea in November.  
Right, I agree with the overall point.  I'm just mentioning it since you continually cherry pick the discussion about the Wisconsin primary to argue with the board lefties. 

 
False equivalence rules everything around me.
Just using the phrase "false equivalence" doesn't uncouple two similar things.  Using the pandemic as an excuse to postpone an election is bad, regardless of who is doing the postponing, regardless of whether it's a primary or general, regardless of whether other elections are being postponed, etc.  Noting those differences doesn't change anything meaningful.

 
True, but transitioning to a mostly mail-in election in this short of a timeframe is going to be incredibly difficult for nearly all states. 
Exactly - it's utter lunacy to try to do this right now.  Just plain dumb as rocks.  Anyone with any sense and still promoting this is looking for election chaos as a result.

 This is clearly a situation where the Federal government needs to help out
Agree there - more money for extended polling periods.  If I were the Fed I wouldn't give a cent for mail in ballot in initiatives, though.  

 
It is actually a minor detail that doesn't change anything significantly.  Postponing elections because of a pandemic was a bad idea in April, it's a bad idea now, and it will be a bad idea in November.  
I agree with the sentiment, but in April we should have been coming up with a plan to vote safely in November, be it by mail or in person. Whatever was happening with primaries at the time was a reaction to the new reality of life in a pandemic. 
 

Exactly - it's utter lunacy to try to do this right now.  Just plain dumb as rocks.  Anyone with any sense and still promoting this is looking for election chaos as a result.

Agree there - more money for extended polling periods.  If I were the Fed I wouldn't give a cent for mail in ballot in initiatives, though.  
You’re right in the first point, and a lot of people have been calling for mail in voting since May. My state has been preparing since then and was already opening up absentee voting before covid hit, so we should be prepared. A state that hasn’t worked on a plan at this point would have a hard time moving forward with mail voting.

 
You’re right in the first point, and a lot of people have been calling for mail in voting since May. My state has been preparing since then and was already opening up absentee voting before covid hit, so we should be prepared. A state that hasn’t worked on a plan at this point would have a hard time moving forward with mail voting.
I'd expand that to " a state that has planned and has significant prior experience" should be ok to move forward with mail in voting.  I'm very leery of implementing something substantial in our most important election.  It opens up way too many Pandora's boxes - incompetence, fraud, voter confusion, etc.

Stick with what works - in-person, pencil and paper voting.  Build a safe system around that.

All IMO, of course.

 
Exactly - it's utter lunacy to try to do this right now.  Just plain dumb as rocks.  Anyone with any sense and still promoting this is looking for election chaos as a result.

[...]

Agree there - more money for extended polling periods.  If I were the Fed I wouldn't give a cent for mail in ballot in initiatives, though.  
I mean, all states already have some form of mail-in/absentee balloting, so all we're really talking about is the degree they'll be able to scale it up. And that scale-up is going to happen whether states are ready for it or not; if lots of voters start requesting ballots, and if the parties encourage their voters to do so, states will be obligated to meet those requests and process the ballots when they are returned. The only thing that will happen if we don't fund it is what we saw in WI/GA during the primaries, where people waited until Election Day to receive their mail-ins, and then, when they hadn't received them in time, all rushed to the polling places and stood on long lines to vote.

Now, if your argument is that states should set voters' expectations now regarding mail-in ballots and focus on ensuring numerous safe, early, in-person voting sites, I get where you're coming from, but I still think their ability to create their own realities might be limited. Some people are just going to be too scared to vote in-person, especially if we're seeing another flare-up in the fall. And we've already seen that one of the biggest bottlenecks is the availability of poll workers, who have traditionally come from the elderly population. If 80-year-olds with co-morbidities are refusing to spend their October weekends sitting in a school cafeteria interacting with strangers, money is not going to be much help.

All of which is to say I'm in favor of expanding early voting, but I also think we need to have a plan for handling more mail-ins.

 
It doesn't, with all that implies.   I say that as one of the few conservatives that still post in this echo chamber.

I mean, he's absolutely correct in the vote my mail scheme.  It will take months to get results, it will be rife with complete incompetence on a local level.  This election took a month before they even finished counting mail in ballots - at a small local level.  A national level will be an unmitigated disaster.

The answer is to have this election on time, but stretch the polling period to 36 hours (i.e. 3 days @ 12 hrs/day) so as to spread everything out when they go to the polls.
I like it but, in most places, the election is already spread over far more than just 3 days when you consider the early voting period. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just using the phrase "false equivalence" doesn't uncouple two similar things.  Using the pandemic as an excuse to postpone an election is bad, regardless of who is doing the postponing, regardless of whether it's a primary or general, regardless of whether other elections are being postponed, etc.  Noting those differences doesn't change anything meaningful.
You may be surprised upon re-reading Trump's tweet that the pandemic is not mentioned.

 
It is actually a minor detail that doesn't change anything significantly.  Postponing elections because of a pandemic was a bad idea in April, it's a bad idea now, and it will be a bad idea in November.  
I think there is a pretty big difference between primaries and general elections, and I can understand a postponement in April to allow time to come up with a plan to allow safe voting, either in person or via mail.  We have plenty of time between now and November to implement safety measures

 
Just using the phrase "false equivalence" doesn't uncouple two similar things.  Using the pandemic as an excuse to postpone an election is bad, regardless of who is doing the postponing, regardless of whether it's a primary or general, regardless of whether other elections are being postponed, etc.  Noting those differences doesn't change anything meaningful.
What about the difference that I mentioned above (that this seems to be an attempt to extend Trump's term)?  That seems extremely meaningful.

Also, I'd like to get your take on the postponement of the New York city mayoral primary on September 11, 2001.  Was that also a bad idea?  Why or why not?

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top