(03-31-2023 07:15 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-31-2023 05:41 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think we owe a debt of gratitude to Pence for keeping any of those scenarios from happening. He kept them in the realm of alternative histories.

I couldnt agree more with that. And I am not necessarily an avid fan of Pence's.

If Pence had acquiesced, we might be in civil war now, as the patriots protesting the theft of of the election by the Democrats fight with the patriots protesting the the theft of of the election by the Republicans.

The losing side would be labeled traitors.

(04-01-2023 11:39 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-31-2023 07:15 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-31-2023 05:41 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think we owe a debt of gratitude to Pence for keeping any of those scenarios from happening. He kept them in the realm of alternative histories.

I couldnt agree more with that. And I am not necessarily an avid fan of Pence's.

If Pence had acquiesced, we might be in civil war now, as the patriots protesting the theft of of the election by the Democrats fight with the patriots protesting the the theft of of the election by the Republicans.

The losing side would be labeled traitors.

And one side would be known as the first side to install a President by declaration or fiat.

Too bad one side is known as the first and only side (to this point) as *trying* to have a person declared a President by fiat.

(04-01-2023 11:57 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-01-2023 11:39 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-31-2023 07:15 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-31-2023 05:41 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think we owe a debt of gratitude to Pence for keeping any of those scenarios from happening. He kept them in the realm of alternative histories.

I couldnt agree more with that. And I am not necessarily an avid fan of Pence's.

If Pence had acquiesced, we might be in civil war now, as the patriots protesting the theft of of the election by the Democrats fight with the patriots protesting the the theft of of the election by the Republicans.

The losing side would be labeled traitors.

And one side would be known as the first side to install a President by declaration or fiat.

Too bad one side is known as the first and only side (to this point) as *trying* to have a person declared a President by fiat.

Only if the Biden team won the war.

If the Trump team won the war, the textbooks would reflect their POV - that Pence had helped save the country from a stolen election.

The winners write the textbooks.

But in this reality, there was no war.

IAC, wasn't the Hayes election decided by negotiation between the sides?

From wikipedia:

In 1877, Hayes assumed the presidency following the 1876 United States presidential election, one of the most contentious in U.S. history. Hayes lost the popular vote to Democrat Samuel J. Tilden, and neither candidate secured enough electoral votes. According to the U.S. Constitution, if no candidate wins the Electoral College, the House of Representatives is tasked with selecting the new president. Hayes secured a victory when a Congressional Commission awarded him 20 contested electoral votes in the Compromise of 1877. The electoral dispute was resolved with a backroom deal whereby the Southern Democrats acquiesced to Hayes's election on the condition that he end both federal support for Reconstruction and the military occupation in the former Confederate States.

(04-01-2023 04:58 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-01-2023 11:57 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-01-2023 11:39 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-31-2023 07:15 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-31-2023 05:41 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think we owe a debt of gratitude to Pence for keeping any of those scenarios from happening. He kept them in the realm of alternative histories.

I couldnt agree more with that. And I am not necessarily an avid fan of Pence's.

If Pence had acquiesced, we might be in civil war now, as the patriots protesting the theft of of the election by the Democrats fight with the patriots protesting the the theft of of the election by the Republicans.

The losing side would be labeled traitors.

And one side would be known as the first side to install a President by declaration or fiat.

Too bad one side is known as the first and only side (to this point) as *trying* to have a person declared a President by fiat.

Only if the Biden team won the war.

If the Trump team won the war, the textbooks would reflect their POV - that Pence had helped save the country from a stolen election.

The winners write the textbooks.

But in this reality, there was no war.

IAC, wasn't the Hayes election decided by negotiation between the sides?

From wikipedia:

In 1877, Hayes assumed the presidency following the 1876 United States presidential election, one of the most contentious in U.S. history. Hayes lost the popular vote to Democrat Samuel J. Tilden, and neither candidate secured enough electoral votes. According to the U.S. Constitution, if no candidate wins the Electoral College, the House of Representatives is tasked with selecting the new president. Hayes secured a victory when a Congressional Commission awarded him 20 contested electoral votes in the Compromise of 1877. The electoral dispute was resolved with a backroom deal whereby the Southern Democrats acquiesced to Hayes's election on the condition that he end both federal support for Reconstruction and the military occupation in the former Confederate States.

There hasn't been an instance in our US history where one candidate has tried to have themself declared as President by fiat via the VP, nor tried to have themself declared President in spite of their opponent having a majority of the electors certified by the several states.

(04-01-2023 07:08 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-01-2023 04:58 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-01-2023 11:57 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-01-2023 11:39 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-31-2023 07:15 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I couldnt agree more with that. And I am not necessarily an avid fan of Pence's.

If Pence had acquiesced, we might be in civil war now, as the patriots protesting the theft of of the election by the Democrats fight with the patriots protesting the the theft of of the election by the Republicans.

The losing side would be labeled traitors.

And one side would be known as the first side to install a President by declaration or fiat.

Too bad one side is known as the first and only side (to this point) as *trying* to have a person declared a President by fiat.

Only if the Biden team won the war.

If the Trump team won the war, the textbooks would reflect their POV - that Pence had helped save the country from a stolen election.

The winners write the textbooks.

But in this reality, there was no war.

IAC, wasn't the Hayes election decided by negotiation between the sides?

From wikipedia:

In 1877, Hayes assumed the presidency following the 1876 United States presidential election, one of the most contentious in U.S. history. Hayes lost the popular vote to Democrat Samuel J. Tilden, and neither candidate secured enough electoral votes. According to the U.S. Constitution, if no candidate wins the Electoral College, the House of Representatives is tasked with selecting the new president. Hayes secured a victory when a Congressional Commission awarded him 20 contested electoral votes in the Compromise of 1877. The electoral dispute was resolved with a backroom deal whereby the Southern Democrats acquiesced to Hayes's election on the condition that he end both federal support for Reconstruction and the military occupation in the former Confederate States.

There hasn't been an instance in our US history where one candidate has tried to have themself declared as President by fiat via the VP, nor tried to have themself declared President in spite of their opponent having a majority of the electors certified by the several states.

I think you have missed a point or two here. We are not asking about actual history here - we are talking about possible alternative histories that could have happened had Pence done as requested. These are speculative histories, not real histories. What if histories, as in what if we had a civil war over who really won the election and who tried to steal it. Both sides would claim the high ground of defender of the country, and the winner of the civil war would write the history that portrays themselves as on the side of right.

In the Hayes election, was the negotiation Constitutional? If not, then we have a precedent of nonConstitutional settlement of contested elections.

(04-01-2023 07:39 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-01-2023 07:08 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-01-2023 04:58 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-01-2023 11:57 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-01-2023 11:39 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  If Pence had acquiesced, we might be in civil war now, as the patriots protesting the theft of of the election by the Democrats fight with the patriots protesting the the theft of of the election by the Republicans.

The losing side would be labeled traitors.

And one side would be known as the first side to install a President by declaration or fiat.

Too bad one side is known as the first and only side (to this point) as *trying* to have a person declared a President by fiat.

Only if the Biden team won the war.

If the Trump team won the war, the textbooks would reflect their POV - that Pence had helped save the country from a stolen election.

The winners write the textbooks.

But in this reality, there was no war.

IAC, wasn't the Hayes election decided by negotiation between the sides?

From wikipedia:

In 1877, Hayes assumed the presidency following the 1876 United States presidential election, one of the most contentious in U.S. history. Hayes lost the popular vote to Democrat Samuel J. Tilden, and neither candidate secured enough electoral votes. According to the U.S. Constitution, if no candidate wins the Electoral College, the House of Representatives is tasked with selecting the new president. Hayes secured a victory when a Congressional Commission awarded him 20 contested electoral votes in the Compromise of 1877. The electoral dispute was resolved with a backroom deal whereby the Southern Democrats acquiesced to Hayes's election on the condition that he end both federal support for Reconstruction and the military occupation in the former Confederate States.

There hasn't been an instance in our US history where one candidate has tried to have themself declared as President by fiat via the VP, nor tried to have themself declared President in spite of their opponent having a majority of the electors certified by the several states.

I think you have missed a point or two here. We are not asking about actual history here - we are talking about possible alternative histories that could have happened had Pence done as requested. These are speculative histories, not real histories. What if histories, as in what if we had a civil war over who really won the election and who tried to steal it. Both sides would claim the high ground of defender of the country, and the winner of the civil war would write the history that portrays themselves as on the side of right.

In the Hayes election, was the negotiation Constitutional? If not, then we have a precedent of nonConstitutional settlement of contested elections.

I said 'tried'. I dont think that is an alternative history issue that I am denoting, in the previous post or the one of mine preceding.

(04-01-2023 07:52 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-01-2023 07:39 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-01-2023 07:08 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-01-2023 04:58 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-01-2023 11:57 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  And one side would be known as the first side to install a President by declaration or fiat.

Too bad one side is known as the first and only side (to this point) as *trying* to have a person declared a President by fiat.

Only if the Biden team won the war.

If the Trump team won the war, the textbooks would reflect their POV - that Pence had helped save the country from a stolen election.

The winners write the textbooks.

But in this reality, there was no war.

IAC, wasn't the Hayes election decided by negotiation between the sides?

From wikipedia:

In 1877, Hayes assumed the presidency following the 1876 United States presidential election, one of the most contentious in U.S. history. Hayes lost the popular vote to Democrat Samuel J. Tilden, and neither candidate secured enough electoral votes. According to the U.S. Constitution, if no candidate wins the Electoral College, the House of Representatives is tasked with selecting the new president. Hayes secured a victory when a Congressional Commission awarded him 20 contested electoral votes in the Compromise of 1877. The electoral dispute was resolved with a backroom deal whereby the Southern Democrats acquiesced to Hayes's election on the condition that he end both federal support for Reconstruction and the military occupation in the former Confederate States.

There hasn't been an instance in our US history where one candidate has tried to have themself declared as President by fiat via the VP, nor tried to have themself declared President in spite of their opponent having a majority of the electors certified by the several states.

I think you have missed a point or two here. We are not asking about actual history here - we are talking about possible alternative histories that could have happened had Pence done as requested. These are speculative histories, not real histories. What if histories, as in what if we had a civil war over who really won the election and who tried to steal it. Both sides would claim the high ground of defender of the country, and the winner of the civil war would write the history that portrays themselves as on the side of right.

In the Hayes election, was the negotiation Constitutional? If not, then we have a precedent of nonConstitutional settlement of contested elections.

I said 'tried'. I dont think that is an alternative history issue that I am denoting, in the previous post or the one of mine preceding.

I think we are talking past each other.

I will say that if I talk about about an alternative history in which Hitler won WWII, that does not mean I wish he did. I have always been fascinated with alternative histories. What if we had lost at Midway? What if Booth had missed Lincoln? What if Napoleon won at Waterloo?

(04-01-2023 08:48 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-01-2023 07:52 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-01-2023 07:39 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-01-2023 07:08 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-01-2023 04:58 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Only if the Biden team won the war.

If the Trump team won the war, the textbooks would reflect their POV - that Pence had helped save the country from a stolen election.

The winners write the textbooks.

But in this reality, there was no war.

IAC, wasn't the Hayes election decided by negotiation between the sides?

From wikipedia:

In 1877, Hayes assumed the presidency following the 1876 United States presidential election, one of the most contentious in U.S. history. Hayes lost the popular vote to Democrat Samuel J. Tilden, and neither candidate secured enough electoral votes. According to the U.S. Constitution, if no candidate wins the Electoral College, the House of Representatives is tasked with selecting the new president. Hayes secured a victory when a Congressional Commission awarded him 20 contested electoral votes in the Compromise of 1877. The electoral dispute was resolved with a backroom deal whereby the Southern Democrats acquiesced to Hayes's election on the condition that he end both federal support for Reconstruction and the military occupation in the former Confederate States.

There hasn't been an instance in our US history where one candidate has tried to have themself declared as President by fiat via the VP, nor tried to have themself declared President in spite of their opponent having a majority of the electors certified by the several states.

I think you have missed a point or two here. We are not asking about actual history here - we are talking about possible alternative histories that could have happened had Pence done as requested. These are speculative histories, not real histories. What if histories, as in what if we had a civil war over who really won the election and who tried to steal it. Both sides would claim the high ground of defender of the country, and the winner of the civil war would write the history that portrays themselves as on the side of right.

In the Hayes election, was the negotiation Constitutional? If not, then we have a precedent of nonConstitutional settlement of contested elections.

I said 'tried'. I dont think that is an alternative history issue that I am denoting, in the previous post or the one of mine preceding.

I think we are talking past each other.

I will say that if I talk about about an alternative history in which Hitler won WWII, that does not mean I wish he did. I have always been fascinated with alternative histories. What if we had lost at Midway? What if Booth had missed Lincoln? What if Napoleon won at Waterloo?

And the issue with this is 'if Pence had gone along'.

In that case, somehow the *history* of having a President 'declared' (as opposed to 'elected') would have to made palatable.

Somehow the *act* of having a President 'declared' (as opposed to 'elected') would have to made palatable.

I am sure that the Trumpistas would have made the efforts to do so somehow. Scratch that -- some actually still do.

Actually scratch that again -- in terms of the steps of Eastman plan, as opposed to the riot at the Capitol, most Trumpistas cant even address the issues of the Eastman plan at present. I understand why --- the attempt to 'declare' a President against (that is as opposed to the act of 'electing' a President) is a hard issue to make palatable. As opposed to defending it (which is a hard road to haoe), they are silent on it.

I dont know whether that is due to 'they dont know about it', or simply wish to avoid the issue of trying to make that particular **** sandwich into a filet mignon.

I would take a far better attorney than myself, of, for that matter anyone I know, t take that one. And, it would take a far better 'teller of story' to make that palatable that I could fathom.

I dont know how one would even begin to make 'declaring a President' into a viable acceptable alternative to 'electing a President', mind you.

That is PR and marketing conundrum for the ages, imo.

(04-02-2023 12:16 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-01-2023 08:48 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-01-2023 07:52 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-01-2023 07:39 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-01-2023 07:08 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  There hasn't been an instance in our US history where one candidate has tried to have themself declared as President by fiat via the VP, nor tried to have themself declared President in spite of their opponent having a majority of the electors certified by the several states.

I think you have missed a point or two here. We are not asking about actual history here - we are talking about possible alternative histories that could have happened had Pence done as requested. These are speculative histories, not real histories. What if histories, as in what if we had a civil war over who really won the election and who tried to steal it. Both sides would claim the high ground of defender of the country, and the winner of the civil war would write the history that portrays themselves as on the side of right.

In the Hayes election, was the negotiation Constitutional? If not, then we have a precedent of nonConstitutional settlement of contested elections.

I said 'tried'. I dont think that is an alternative history issue that I am denoting, in the previous post or the one of mine preceding.

I think we are talking past each other.

I will say that if I talk about about an alternative history in which Hitler won WWII, that does not mean I wish he did. I have always been fascinated with alternative histories. What if we had lost at Midway? What if Booth had missed Lincoln? What if Napoleon won at Waterloo?

And the issue with this is 'if Pence had gone along'.

In that case, somehow the *history* of having a President 'declared' (as opposed to 'elected') would have to made palatable.

Somehow the *act* of having a President 'declared' (as opposed to 'elected') would have to made palatable.

I am sure that the Trumpistas would have made the efforts to do so somehow. Scratch that -- some actually still do.

Actually scratch that again -- in terms of the steps of Eastman plan, as opposed to the riot at the Capitol, most Trumpistas cant even address the issues of the Eastman plan at present. I understand why --- the attempt to 'declare' a President against (that is as opposed to the act of 'electing' a President) is a hard issue to make palatable. As opposed to defending it (which is a hard road to haoe), they are silent on it.

I dont know whether that is due to 'they dont know about it', or simply wish to avoid the issue of trying to make that particular **** sandwich into a filet mignon.

I would take a far better attorney than myself, of, for that matter anyone I know, t take that one. And, it would take a far better 'teller of story' to make that palatable that I could fathom.

I dont know how one would even begin to make 'declaring a President' into a viable acceptable alternative to 'electing a President', mind you.

That is PR and marketing conundrum for the ages, imo.

Think back to the year 2000, when we had, according to one side, a President “selected, not elected”. We were both around for that.

Or 1876, when the President really was selected, in a back room deal. I don’t remember that step being in the Constitution.

I bet there are other examples.

I don’t have any quarrel with your position. I just don’t see it’s relevance to the alternative history I posited. Speculation as to how the post-Civil War period would have gone had Lincoln survived is not countered by saying “But he died”.

Another such is what would our world be like now if Seward had not bought Alaska, leaving it in (gasp!) Russian control.

I would disagree with both of your examples above.

The State of Florida freely elected a slate, and that slate voted in the process. I.e. the results of th electoral process itself was the end result. Id go into more detail into the other side, but at its core the D process was flawed, seriously flawed, under the rubric of the Constitution.

They were literally asking for different treatment of different ballots in differing locations by the same state.

The reason why Trump's Wisc efforts were tossed aside post-election.

In the Hayes issue, you are correct the winner was selected. By the parties themselves mind you.

Your alt history posit was this, apparently:

Quote:If the Trump team won the war, the textbooks would reflect their POV - that Pence had helped save the country from a stolen election.

The issue about that is it still requires a selection of a President by fiat action of the VP, and only after the VP throws the process into *the* most massive Constitutional crisis the nation has seen in the process. And by a process that even the author admitted was illegal, and one that the author requested a pardon from Trump for participating in.

Id say it would be very hard to write that away.

Fairly akin to Russia trying to write away a stark invasion based on 'eliminating fascism' and 'mass murder of Russians'.

(04-02-2023 07:58 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I would disagree with both of your examples above.

The State of Florida freely elected a slate, and that slate voted in the process. I.e. the results of th electoral process itself was the end result. Id go into more detail into the other side, but at its core the D process was flawed, seriously flawed, under the rubric of the Constitution.

They were literally asking for different treatment of different ballots in differing locations by the same state.

The reason why Trump's Wisc efforts were tossed aside post-election.

In the Hayes issue, you are correct the winner was selected. By the parties themselves mind you.

Your alt history posit was this, apparently:

Quote:If the Trump team won the war, the textbooks would reflect their POV - that Pence had helped save the country from a stolen election.

The issue about that is it still requires a selection of a President by fiat action of the VP, and only after the VP throws the process into *the* most massive Constitutional crisis the nation has seen in the process. And by a process that even the author admitted was illegal, and one that the author requested a pardon from Trump for participating in.

Id say it would be very hard to write that away.

Fairly akin to Russia trying to write away a stark invasion based on 'eliminating fascism' and 'mass murder of Russians'.

The first seven words of my quoted statement cover that. The victors seldom condemn themselves. They often justify themselves.

But it is all speculation, and has no effect on the realities of today. Thanks for the civil discussion, Tanq. A rare pleasure here to have a difference of opinion without ad homs.

Bottom line, it is almost impossible to meet the evidentiary burden required to win a post-election challenge based on voter fraud. So instead of complaining after the fact, republicans should have contested the changes to election rules during 2020 that basically destroyed whatever security and integrity our election process had. I think republicans were asleep at the switch, even in states with republican-controlled state houses or governor's mansions, because there are a large numbers of RINOs who would rather have Joe Biden as president than Donald Trump as head of the republican party.

And instead of still complaining today, they need to get high behind restoring trust and integrity to our election process. Complaining about stolen elections is not a winning issue, but fixing the problems is essential to the future of our democratic republic.

I do not know whether the 2020 and/or 2022 elections were stolen. And neither do you. Nor does anyone else. Because with our current process there is no way to know. And that is not a good thing.

(04-02-2023 08:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Bottom line, it is almost impossible to meet the evidentiary burden required to win a post-election challenge based on voter fraud. So instead of complaining after the fact, republicans should have contested the changes to election rules during 2020 that basically destroyed whatever security and integrity our election process had. I think republicans were asleep at the switch, even in states with republican-controlled state houses or governor's mansions, because there are a large numbers of RINOs who would rather have Joe Biden as president than Donald Trump as head of the republican party.

I think a lot of the 2020 changes were put in with an eye toward ease of cheating.

Quote:And instead of still complaining today, they need to get high behind restoring trust and integrity to our election process.

How?

Quote:I do not know whether the 2020 and/or 2022 elections were stolen.

I have little doubt that there was widespread cheating, probably very effective in smaller races. I don’t know if it was sufficient to swing the national election.

(04-02-2023 09:13 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think a lot of the 2020 changes were put in with an eye toward ease of cheating.

Of course they were. There is no other reason for making them.

Quote:How?

Sell the necessary changes because we are the only democratic republic that doesn't require them. Like Obamacare was sold because we were supposedly the only country without universal health care--which Obamacare does not provide, by the way.

The biggest thing is to focus on appealing to the independents rather than the base, because that is the way to win elections, and you can't make any changes without winning elections.

Quote:I have little doubt that there was widespread cheating, probably very effective in smaller races. I don’t know if it was sufficient to swing the national election.

Agree.

Tanq,

Some time back (and I can't find it now) I posted about unequal enforcement of the law, and you responded that it was like a radar speed trap that caught some motorists but not all.

No, it's not. It's like a radar speed trap that stops black drivers for doing 56 in a 55, but waves at white drivers who blow by at 75. And that's the part that I find totally unacceptable.

(04-04-2023 10:34 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Tanq,

Some time back (and I can't find it now) I posted about unequal enforcement of the law, and you responded that it was like a radar speed trap that caught some motorists but not all.

No, it's not. It's like a radar speed trap that stops black drivers for doing 56 in a 55, but waves at white drivers who blow by at 75. And that's the part that I find totally acceptable.

LOL.

Daniels ordered to pay Trump's attorney fees

I wonder how this reflects on Daniels as potential witness.