Letter from All Ten Living Former U.S. Defense Secretaries - The election is over. There's no role for the U.S. military in determining the outcome of a U.S. election.

Interesting post

So much for your experts and their opinions.Your source is shit and says a lot about why this article was printed....So much for your experts and their opinions. Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

The original post was, word-for-word, a letter written by all ten living former U.S. Defense Secretaries. So you're saying they're "shit" and their opinions don't matter. Why? Is this why -- please correct me if I'm wrong:

1. You believe Trump is justified in using the military to overturn the election, based on historical precedent. And part of the precedent was using the military to attack the black population in Oklahoma:

Washington put down the Whiskey Rebellion with the military such as it was.
Lincoln violated the Constitution so many different ways and is one of our greatest presidents.
After the Civil War, the presidents all used the military to keep order in the south.
Wilson used the military to put down anarchists and seditionists during World War I.
After World War I, the military was used to attack the black population in Oklahoma.
Eisenhower used the National Guard to integrate southern schools. Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

2. You believe a general would be justified in leading a coup, against president Biden and his civilian Defense Secretary, because he's paranoid about CHIna:

Now each member of the military takes an oath to protect and defend the Constitution and to obey the orders of all those officers appointed above them. If a member of the military (say a general) believes that having Biden in office would endanger the United States and our Constitution then they would be required to actin to protect the country. That's what the left fails to understand, we have a serious issue with the Biden clan and their compromised situation with China. Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

The majority of people in this country believe that something was wrong with this election. Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

That may be true. It's why we have Senators and an electoral college, because sometimes the majority is wrong.

Maybe it didn't change the outcome but something happened and it should be investigated if not for this election, then the next election. Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

True

People should be indicted and should be convicted. Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

Undoubtedly there are cases of small scale electoral fraud, like the two dead people who voted in Georgia. There must be in any presidential election. Looking at the bigger picture, Trump on Saturday in his conversation with Georgia SOS Raffensperger, allegedly broke election laws and may be indicted and convicted. I'm not saying he should be, but rather that he may be.

Funny how liberal Hollywood sees the same issue prior to Biden. In the remake of the Manchurian Candidate, the protagonist felt it was necessary to kill the control for Liev Schreiber instead of revealing her duplicity. Funny how Hollywood changes their opinion with a new president. Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

I never saw the movie. However, based on what's happened since November 15, I don't see how an unknowing Democratic Party plant could have done any more damage to Republicans than Trump. Loeffler and Perdue were heavy favorites. Now they're underdogs. It's increasingly looking like Biden, Pelosi and Schumer will control the government. And the Republican Party will lose voters and become a minority party if it doesn't break away from Trump.

did you post this because these people think this is Thailand? Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Barleycorn's a big admirer of the system in Thailand

when I saw the title of this thread

well forgive me because of my insertion here but I couldn't help but be reminded of

the 50 former intelligence officials proclaiming the hunter biden case as having all the hallmarks of russian disinformation

again I apologize for the off topic post

It’s not in the constitution. It’s a federal statute.

Thank you for pointing that out and that it does exist. If it is used incorrectly, I'm sure the courts will rectify it. That's what they are there for.

The purpose of the statute is not for there to be attempts to overthrow elections because one party doesn’t like the results. It was so there was a way for all the state votes to be tallied at the capital in one place at one time.

Ah Yes! "The purpose of the statute". Some times the words mean different things to different people, hence the need for Federal courts and the SC, which is why I'm not worried about "losing our democracy".

It may be constitutional, but that doesn’t mean this was the purpose. All I can say is that I hope you’re all good with it when the Dems use this if they have control of both chambers and decide to seat their own president regardless of election results.

What's amusing in that is that you think the Democrats wouldn't take this route if the roles were reversed. Surely you don't believe that right?

NEVER CONCEDE SAYS HILLARY AND THEY ALL APPLAUD IN APPROVAL.

Look at how Abrams tried her best to over turn the election in Georgia. I have no problem with pulling out all the stops as long as they are statutorily and Constitutionally applied.

https://www.npr.org/2020/11/18/93573...s-what-changed

Trump Hasn't Conceded Georgia. Neither Did Stacey Abrams.

A refusal to concede isn't a new concept to Georgia. The 2018 Democratic candidate for governor, Stacey Abrams, also refused to concede to her Republican opponent, Brian Kemp.

Abrams had stayed quiet for 10 days after the election while her campaign focused on getting more absentee and provisional ballots counted. Then she called a press conference at which she made a careful statement: "I acknowledge that former Secretary of State Brian Kemp will be certified as the victor in the 2018 gubernatorial election.
However, she declared, this was "not a speech of concession."
Kemp's duties at the time included overseeing the election. Abrams had been loudly critical of his policies and doubled down on those criticisms in the speech.


"You see, I'm supposed to say nice things and accept my fate. They will complain that I should not use this moment to recap what was done wrong or to demand a remedy," she said. "And I will not concede because the erosion of our democracy is not right."

Sound familiar?


At the time, Kemp's communications director, Ryan Mahoney called the nonconcession a "disgrace to democracy." Mahoney remains a senior strategist for now-Gov. Kemp.


"I think the one thing that was very clear, which is different than I think what we're seeing now, is that the numbers were undeniable," Mahoney said.
Abrams lost by nearly 55,000 votes and never did concede.





She accused Kemp of voter suppression, which Kemp has repeatedly denied. He has instead pointed to policies that expanded voting access in Georgia, such as online voter registration.
While accusing Kemp of voter suppression was "false," Mahoney said, he acknowledged the practice exists, as does voter fraud, which is why both should be investigated.


"Stacey Abrams said that she had questions, and she wanted to count the votes, etc., etc. — so that same opportunity and process should be afforded to the president as well."
In a statement issued after this story was first published, Seth Bringman, Abrams' spokesman, said her situation in 2018 and Trump's today are nothing alike.
"We had a coherent and well-documented case about why the system failed voters, in truthful and complete sentences. Now, Donald Trump has no evidence and no argument, and thanks to the work of Fair Fight Action, everyone including Donald Trump can have confidence that voters spoke and Joe Biden won," said Bringman.


Officials defend their practices

Gabriel Sterling, Georgia's voting system implementation manager, said in a November press conference that both claims are false.
"For the people out there who are irritated with people talking about voter fraud right now, they should be equally irritated with people who talked about voter suppression two years ago," he said. "Both undermine confidence in the system."
Abrams argued the two situations are opposites.


"What we asked for starting on Nov. 6 [2018] through Nov. 16 [2018], was that every vote cast could be counted. That should always be the mission," she said. "What we are hearing now is that they don't want every vote to count. They don't want every voice to be included."
Democrats have in part credited Abrams, who has pushed for years to change voting practices in Georgia and register more people, with enabling Biden's victory there.

Ghazal argued that part of the reason why there haven't been the same complaints about the state's election system this year is some of the policies Democrats complained about two years ago have been fixed, including a new "cure" period that allows people to rectify problems with absentee ballots.


But the Georgia Legislature did not "fix" that law as the law calls for. It was a "compromise" between Stacey Abrams and the Georgia Secy. of State, a violation of state law which is what the SC was asked to address but did not essentially saying that state law doesn't matter, they can do what ever they please. How is that going to "play out" in the future?


At that 2018 nonconcession press conference, Abrams announced her campaign would file a "major federal lawsuit" over the constitutionality of the state's voting system, which remains in the courts.


"We will channel the work of the past several weeks into a strong legal demand for reform of our election systems in Georgia," she said.
The politicization of elections, which have always sought to be nonpartisan, concerns Myrna Pérez, the elections and voting rights director at the Brennan Center for Justice.


All’s fair remember. If this election was fraught with fraud then they all are from hence forth. So, what we’ll have going forward is everyone claiming they’ve been cheated and if there is single rule in both chambers, they can steal the election.


They can try but as we all seem to be acknowledging, it will fail but what if Trump had won a few of those cases but he still came up short in a couple of states that many people conceded had "problems". Whether one calls it "fraud" or something else, I don't think there is any question at all that state laws and yes, the Constitution was violated because both say that only Legislatures can change voting laws and we have example after example of voter commissions, Governor's and even state SC's deciding they had this authority which they did not and a cowardly ( IMHO ) US SC, the only court that can decide on matters of States suing States, decided to keep hands off when clear State violations were evident.

I’m glad you think this is fine and should just play out because “why would that law exist” Originally Posted by 1blackman1

If it is a bad, un-necessary law, change it. If it is on the books, it can and will be used.

You are not usually right.

Can you prove that shit too? Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Yeah.