The Inside Story of Michigan’s Fake Voter Fraud Scandal

[Steeleballz 7,550]

How a state that was never in doubt became a "national embarrassment" and a symbol of the Republican Party’s fealty to Donald Trump.

 

After five years spent bullying the Republican Party into submission, President Donald Trump finally met his match in Aaron Van Langevelde.

Who?

 

That’s right. In the end, it wasn’t a senator or a judge or a general who stood up to the leader of the free world. There was no dramatic, made-for-Hollywood collision of cosmic egos. Rather, the death knell of Trump’s presidency was sounded by a baby-faced lawyer, looking over his glasses on a grainy Zoom feed on a gloomy Monday afternoon, reading from a statement that reflected a courage and moral clarity that has gone AWOL from his party, pleading with the tens of thousands of people watching online to understand that some lines can never be uncrossed.

“We must not attempt to exercise power we simply don’t have,” declared Van Langevelde, a member of Michigan’s board of state canvassers, the ministerial body with sole authority to make official Joe Biden’s victory over Trump. “As John Adams once said, 'We are a government of laws, not men.' This board needs to adhere to that principle here today. This board must do its part to uphold the rule of law and comply with our legal duty to certify this election.”

Van Langevelde is a Republican. He works for Republicans in the Statehouse. He gives legal guidance to advance Republican causes and win Republican campaigns. As a Republican, his mandate for Monday’s hearing—handed down from the state party chair, the national party chair and the president himself—was straightforward. They wanted Michigan’s board of canvassers to delay certification of Biden’s victory.

 

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/11/24/michigan-election-trump-voter-fraud-democracy-440475?utm_source=pocket-newtab

[Dashinka 24,505]

Well Michigan was a joke four years ago when they allowed Stein to demand a recount, so not much has changed.

[moxy 1,051]

Yet another reason to abandon the Electoral College in favor of a national popular vote. It was fortunate there was one man with scruples to stop a coup. There's no guarantee somebody like Langevelde will be there next time.

[Ban Hammer 13,343]

16 minutes ago, moxy said:

Yet another reason to abandon the Electoral College in favor of a national popular vote.

if the founding fathers wanted a national popular vote, they would have done so.

[moxy 1,051]

2 minutes ago, Ban Hammer said:

if the founding fathers wanted a national popular vote, they would have done so.

If the founding fathers had wanted to abolish slavery, give women the vote, or any number of other actions, they would have done so. But hey, #### off founding fathers, women get to vote now.

 

There are many arguments for keeping the electoral college. This is the worst of them.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

4 minutes ago, Ban Hammer said:

if the founding fathers wanted a national popular vote, they would have done so.

 

    If the founding fathers wanted to be our Gods, they would have carved commandments in stone. They actually did give us a venue for changing things if/when society evolves. We have amended the constitution 27 times. They expected us to consider that an option.

 

  States themselves may also join the interstate compact to use the national popular vote. They are ~75% of the way towards doing that ATM, although the remaining 25% may not come easily.

[moxy 1,051]

13 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

States themselves may also join the interstate compact to use the national popular vote. They are ~75% of the way towards doing that ATM, although the remaining 25% may not come easily.

My state joined this recently and it's a good start. Probably won't see it kick in during my lifetime, unfortunately.

[Ban Hammer 13,343]

36 minutes ago, moxy said:

If the founding fathers had wanted to abolish slavery, give women the vote, or any number of other actions, they would have done so. But hey, #### off founding fathers, women get to vote now.

 

There are many arguments for keeping the electoral college. This is the worst of them.

not arguing for keeping it, just pointing out that the founding fathers knew well tyranny by majority. 

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

22 minutes ago, moxy said:

My state joined this recently and it's a good start. Probably won't see it kick in during my lifetime, unfortunately.

What state is that? Also I am not in favor of the popular vote because you will have only a couple states such as NY and CA to decide the election for me. Just like when I lived in CA only two counties decided the state governor election

[moxy 1,051]

13 minutes ago, Ban Hammer said:

not arguing for keeping it, just pointing out that the founding fathers knew well tyranny by majority. 

You're not wrong. They were also a bunch of racist hacks.

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/electoral-college-racist-origins/601918/

Edited December 1, 2020 by moxy

[moxy 1,051]

1 minute ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

What state is that? Also I am not in favor of the popular vote because you will have only a couple states such as NY and CA to decide the election for me. Just like when I lived in CA only two counties decided the state governor election

I'd rather not say what state.

 

Your objection to the electoral vote is a common objection, but the thing is that people should vote, not states. Your argument could be sliced down to "the people across the street have two votes, but I'm a single parent and I only have one vote, and that's not fair." People (should) vote, not states. If New York City has more people than Topeka, KS, then so be it. I don't think someone from Topeka should have a weighted vote just because of geography. And bonus: candidates wouldn't concentrate on just a handful of states anymore. They'd have to appeal to a much broader populace.

 

btw, it used to be state legislatures that voted, not individuals. And state legislatures could take that right back if they wanted to. Amending the constitution to take voting rights out of the hands of the state legislatures and back into the hands of the citizenry is simply more democratic.

3 minutes ago, Ban Hammer said:

please stop posting like the above

Attempt to bypass the Forums language filter through the use of alternative characters to spell profanities or through the posting of images containing profanity.

Fixed.

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

2 minutes ago, moxy said:

I'd rather not say what state.

 

Your objection to the electoral vote is a common objection, but the thing is that people should vote, not states. Your argument could be sliced down to "the people across the street have two votes, but I'm a single parent and I only have one vote, and that's not fair." People (should) vote, not states. If New York City has more people than Topeka, KS, then so be it. I don't think someone from Topeka should have a weighted vote just because of geography. And bonus: candidates wouldn't concentrate on just a handful of states anymore. They'd have to appeal to a much broader populace.

 

btw, it used to be state legislatures that voted, not individuals. And state legislatures could take that right back if they wanted to. Amending the constitution to take voting rights out of the hands of the state legislatures and back into the hands of the citizenry is simply more democratic.

I understand and see both sides of this argument tbh with you. But after living in CA and seeing how that state is ran I want no part of it at all. I certainly don't want some person from the Bay or LA area determining what is good for the country. Which unfortunately that is what is happening and I freaking hate it. 

[moxy 1,051]

5 minutes ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

I understand and see both sides of this argument tbh with you. But after living in CA and seeing how that state is ran I want no part of it at all. I certainly don't want some person from the Bay or LA area determining what is good for the country. Which unfortunately that is what is happening and I freaking hate it. 

I mean, somebody's gotta be in charge, and somebody's going to hate who it is and where they came from. At least with one person one vote, candidates have to appeal to a wider array of people. Right now they just have to appeal to Floridians and midwesterners. "Safe states" should not be a thing.

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

11 minutes ago, moxy said:

I mean, somebody's gotta be in charge, and somebody's going to hate who it is and where they came from. At least with one person one vote, candidates have to appeal to a wider array of people. Right now they just have to appeal to Floridians and midwesterners. "Safe states" should not be a thing.

I really hate the idea of "safe states" or "safe districts" all together. I hate gerrymandering to my core no matter who is doing it. I have always said that we need to draw districts to make them as competitive as possible because it will help keep the politician accountable to the people of the district

Edited December 1, 2020 by Cyberfx1024

[moxy 1,051]

2 minutes ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

I really hate the idea of "safe states" or "safe districts" all together. I hate gerrymandering to my core no matter who is doing it. I have always said that we need to draw districts to make them as competitive as possible because it will help keep the politician accountable to the people of the district

Amen brother. I'd be a big fan of congress denying a seat to reps from gerrymandered districts, and/or requiring contiguous political districts to be drawn. The former would be hard to enforce, but the latter could be legislated in a day.