2020 US election - The fat lady is warming up in the wings

[robkelk]

Reuters: Biden wins Arizona

The Register: Election security fears doused with reality: Top officials say Nov 3 'was the most secure in American history.'

CBC analysis: Why Trump's 4-front attack on U.S. election result is almost certain to fail

CBC: Could Trump pardon himself before he leaves office? Your U.S. election questions answered

• Can a U.S. president pardon him- or herself?
  
• Could the U.S. Supreme Court overturn the election results?
  
• What happens if you die after casting your ballot? ("There's 51 sets of rules")
  
• Do electors have to vote with the popular vote?
  

I have a few rebuttals to this

1. What crimes has the man committed. I mean, things that could be PROVEN. If he was guilty of anything else besides being a prick and being the guy people didn't want in the White House, he'd be indicted by now. Four years of trying all sorts of things to nail him for something have resulted in nothing.

2. That second question is misleading. At best, they can determine if the process for the election followed the law. It's the states who will have the final call via the electors (modified to account for how the court rules of course) that makes the final call.

3. This is downright cute in its attempts to pretend Trump is full of crap. Yes, there are rules for a vote to still count if you recently died in some states. My grandfather passed a few months before the 2016 election and voted early because he knew he was dying and it was still valid under the rules of the state he voted in. There is a clear difference between that and someone who has been dead for over 200 years somehow casting a ballot, let's not pretend there isn't. Whether anyone was dumb enough to try that will be decided in the recounts.

4. Short version, no. Faithless electors are a thing, but that rarely occurs and generally would not be enough to sway things unless you get absurdly large numbers of them to defect.

My point here is to be the realist. The media can say whatever they like and quote whoever they like, they do NOT coronate the new president, the electors do, and we won't know that until they actually vote. Either man winning is fine, I'll accept that, but the media can only pretend Biden is the official winner until then.

Geth, did you read the article, or are you just going from the headlines?

1. The Department of Justice has a policy that a sitting President is never indicted for anything - they say that it's up to the House of Representatives to indict him. And they did. It isn't their fault that his political buddies in the Senate declined to look at the evidence.

2. Your comment here tells me that you didn't read the article.

3. The article doesn't mention either party in its question or answer. You're projecting your bias onto the headline.

4. Your comment here tells me that you didn't read the article.

And I find your use of "coronate" disturbing. Didn't your people fight a war of rebellion to get out from under someone who was coronated, and swear you'd never submit to such a person again?