There are. The house can work without presidential accord with a 60% (I think, don't quote me) majority decision.
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
American politics
- Thread starter Danishfurniturelover
- Start date
I'm sure they would, but it won't have an effect on this year's election and after inauguration it's too late.
milo
Jack L. Jones
I agree but it could limit Trump's power, particularly if it is shown that a foreign power interfered with the vote
milo
Jack L. Jones
I'm not sure we really want Trump's powers limited.
We have the option of Trump or Pence. Both have plenty I disagree with, but Trump isn't a godtard.
milo
Jack L. Jones
I don't agree. As long as Trump isn't personally linked to vote rigging, I see no reason why he should fall. What I had in mind is that with less of a mandate, he has less personal authority to push things through. Much of the Republican party does not support him and Congress and the Senate might be more likely to block his more destructive policies.
Trump was offering the presidency in all but name to the VP candidates.
I genuinely don't believe he has any interest in running the country. Pence will be doing most of it, with firm backing from the Republicans. Trump will only object I'd it affects him or his businesses.
milo
Jack L. Jones
It certainly looks like he sees this primarily as an opportunity for personal enrichment. His ego is going to love being President though. Even if he leaves the heavy lifting to someone else, I cannot see him not wanting to be centre stage.
Just ask any magician how dangerous that's going to be!
thfcsteff
George Hunt
[emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji106][emoji106][emoji106]
Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
Mr_B
Niko Kranjcar
and thats exactly why the status quo will be maintained, the current system suits the republicans and they control all the executive branches of government and if the power was switched, they have better lawyers to win in the
courtroom as well.
It won't do them any good.
Even if they push it all the way to the SC, there would be little appetite to take a case that was so recently ruled on (Bush v Gore).
If all four liberal justices agree to take the case (my understanding is that the SC likes consistency, so unlikely) then they still don't have enough votes to win.
All they're doing with the recounts is lining up a few test cases so that if one of the 4 non-liberal SC justices makes some public statement about disliking Trump then they'll run with the case.
Lost Mango
Pascal Chimbonda
Does it go to the SC straight up?
Surely it only goes to them if it can't be sorted at the State level, especially if not before the Dec 18th Electoral College 'vote'.
No, but as the SC has already ruled on the time limit (which is what Trump's team would argue to) then the states' hands are tied.
The states might return a verdict that there has to be a recount, but Trump will just ask for a recount in a couple of counties he can rely on to drag it out past the deadline and then bring a case on the basis that they can't recount as it will go past the inauguration deadline.
In that position, the state's hands are tied, because the SC has already ruled (Bush v Gore), and all they can do is pass it up the chain. To my knowledge, the SC has yet to overrule its own verdict on any decision less than decades old. It wouldn't be healthy for the law to change like that every time a new Justice is appointed.
Last edited:
Lost Mango
Pascal Chimbonda
The man just needs to shut up. He has no dignity or self-awareness.