Ideosphere Forum

Re: fx-propose: Revision of Proposal: 'R2020'

Author: scryer@gmail.com
Conversation: fx-propose: Proposal: 'R2020' ( prev | next ) reply!
Topic: fx-propose ( prev | next )
In-Reply-To: Sam Fentress's post
Date: Sun Feb 23, 2020 09:39 pm
Sam Fentress
scryer@gmail.com
Tom Adams



I agree. Winning the election (i.e. making it through the Constitutional
hoops) is an interesting enough proposition. The other aspects could be
handled by a COUP20-style claim with its own set of rules.

On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 6:26 PM Sam Fentress <sfentress@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 11:54 PM @lbutlr <kremels@kreme.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> What ifs there is no tie, but the instruments of government refuse to
>> acknowledge the vote? What if he lose the EC and is still awaited the
>> Office? What if Trump simply refuses to leave office and has the backing of
>> all the people he’s appointed who have pledged loyalty to him and not the
>> US?
>>
>
> The original claim was "Trump wins the presidential election in 2020."
> This seems to me to be the intent of the claim -- the winning of the
> election, not all the possible, impossible, and imaginary scenarios that
> may take place later.
>
> I personally think that the whole discussion of who is or isn't legally
> president on a certain day in 2021 is beside the point IF the original
> intent of the claim was about the election itself -- i.e. the will of the
> American people etc etc -- and not about legal shenanigans. And the way you
> measure who has won a presidential election is by the Electoral College
> counts presented to Congress. (And if you're worried that there's a chance
> the results may be delayed, then push the deadline way back, because saying
> that a candidate hasn't won because the results aren't in sounds strange to
> me.)
>
> If, however, the claim proposer is more interested in who is in office on
> Feb 1st, regardless of the election, then we should remove the election
> aspect entirely, and determine some other way that we will decide what
> counts as being the "President of the USA."
>
> I think tying the two parts together is what's generating all the
> discussion.
>
> Sam
>


--
Jim Gillogly

source



All trademarks, copyrights, and messages on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Forum: Copyright (c) 2000-2001 Javien Inc All rights reserved. Distributed under the GPL