SAD - predsednički izbori 2020.

Pobednik predsedničkih izbora u SAD 2020. godine?

  • Donald Tramp

    glasova: 91 74,6%

  • Džo Bajden

    glasova: 31 25,4%
  • Ukupno glasova
    122
  • Anketa je zatvorena .
stanje
Zatvorena za pisanje odgovora.
TONOLAN:
Diktatura je spas kad je u državi anarhija.
Svi se nadamo da do toga doći neće. Samo gradjanski rat pa ko kako prodje...
Kliknite za proširenje...
ја верујем у парламентаризам и владавину права, а не у диктатуру, било какву и било чију. али плашим се да су диктатуре усуд Континента. срећом, САД имају другачије традиције, а нисам сигуран да их марксисти могу озбиљно да пољуљају.
 
Lepi Bora:
Pogledajte prilog 813312
Kliknite za proširenje...
1607451186699.png
 
Statler and Waldorf:
ја верујем у парламентаризам и владавину права, а не у диктатуру, било какву и било чију. али плашим се да су диктатуре усуд Континента. срећом, САД имају другачије традиције, а нисам сигуран да их марксисти могу озбиљно да пољуљају.
Kliknite za proširenje...
ne, oni bas imaju diktatorsku tradiciju,
zasto je neko diktator ako terorise gradjane samo u svojoj drzavi,
a nije diktator kad terorise ceo svet,
kakva je to uvrnuta logika
 
Statler and Waldorf:
ја верујем у парламентаризам и владавину права, а не у диктатуру, било какву и било чију. али плашим се да су диктатуре усуд Континента. срећом, САД имају другачије традиције, а нисам сигуран да их марксисти могу озбиљно да пољуљају.
Kliknite za proširenje...
kakva bre vladavina prava. cijeg prava?

ajde reci neku vaznu pravnu normu/zakonitost, koja nije religijskog porekla, a ispravna je i primenjuje se kako treba.
 
https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-55224511

Georgia declares Biden winner for a third time

For a third time, Joe Biden has been declared the winner of Georgia's presidential election.
A final tally announced by Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger showed that Mr Biden won the normally Republican stronghold by under 12,000 votes.
The state carried out a second recount of the 3 November vote following challenges from President Trump's team.
Kliknite za proširenje...
Bajden pobednik i posle drugog prebrojavanja u Dzordziji.
 
https://www.inquirer.com/news/penns...e-kelly-ted-cruz-tom-wolf-trump-20201208.html


Texas asks SCOTUS to throw out Pa.’s election results as Democratic officials press for an end to ‘frivolous’ GOP litigation


Pennsylvania officials urged the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday to finally put an end to a wave of what they described as a last-minute “frivolous” lawsuits from Republican allies of President Donald Trump, arguing that nothing less than the integrity of the judiciary and the sanctity of constitutional democracy was at stake.

But despite their pleas, the onslaught of increasingly shaky litigation kept coming.

Late Monday night, the state of Texas joined the expanding list of naysayers knocking at courthouse doors by asking the Supreme Court’s justices for leave to sue Pennsylvania as well as Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin. It decried what it described as “significant and unconstitutional irregularities” in voting processes in each battleground and urged the justices to throw out their election results and appoint each state’s legislature to decide the winner instead.

That fight joins a collection of other eleventh-hour legal battles, including a bid before the justices from U.S. Rep. Mike Kelly (R., Pa.) and one before a Pennsylvania appellate court led by state Rep. Daryl Metcalfe (R., Butler) — both seeking court orders to invalidate the state’s certified election results.

But that last-minute spasm of activity comes as the president appears to have largely given up on his own legal battles in the state. After suffering more than a dozen consecutive losses in his attempt to challenge the Pennsylvania election results in state and federal courts, his campaign has not appealed any of its Pennsylvania-focused litigation to the U.S. Supreme Court and has not sought to join any of the more recent lawsuits brought by his GOP allies.

Instead, his focus appears to have shifted toward leaning on lawmakers in Harrisburg and Washington to make an end run around the courts. The Washington Post reported Monday that Trump had personally leaned on Pennsylvania state House Speaker Bryan Cutler (R., Lancaster) twice in the past week, seeking his assistance in reversing President-elect Joe Biden’s victory in the state — a tactic the president has also deployed with elected leaders in Michigan and Georgia.


Cutler rebuffed him both times, saying the state legislature had no legal authority to interfere. But late Friday, the speaker signed a letter along with 63 other Republican colleagues in the state House urging Pennsylvania’s Congressional delegation to reject the state’s Electoral College votes when Congress meets in January to sign off on the final vote.

Many of those same lawmakers filed a brief in support of Kelly’s suit before the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday, urging the justices to effectively roll back Pennsylvania’s certified results, which declared Joe Biden the victor by some 81,000 votes.

Kelly has argued that last year’s statute that expanded the ability to vote by mail in the state was improperly passed as a law by the GOP-controlled legislature when it should have been subjected to the more rigorous process of amending the state constitution. He has pushed for disqualifying every ballot cast by mail in the state and has asked the Supreme Court justices to issue an injunction invalidating Pennsylvania’s results until his case can be fully argued and decided by the courts.

On Tuesday, lawyers for Wolf and the state’s Democratic legislators balked at Kelly’s arguments — noting that many of the GOP lawmakers who had signed on in support of the congressman’s suit had originally voted for the law they are now calling unconstitutional — and the remedy he is now seeking before the court, noting he is effectively calling for the disenfranchisement of the entire state.


Kelly, they wrote, “asks this court to undertake one of the most dramatic, disruptive invocations of judicial power in the history of the republic. No court has ever issued an order nullifying a governor’s certification of presidential election results. And for good reason.”

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas) has said he will argue the congressman’s case himself should the Supreme Court decide to hear oral arguments — a fact Kelly’s lawyer confirmed Monday — saying the constitutional integrity of the 2020 election is at stake.

But meanwhile, Cruz’s state moved forward with its own legal challenge based in the argument that Pennsylvania election officials and state judges usurped the authority of their state legislatures by implementing policies or passing rulings that Republicans say ran contrary to what lawmakers had originally intended.

For instance, Republicans have repeatedly pushed back against guidance Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar gave to counties to allow voters the chance to correct mistakes on their mail ballots by Election Day. Some Democratic-leaning counties followed that guidance, other Republican ones refused to do so.

But state and federal courts in Pennsylvania have rejected GOP arguments that Boockvar’s guidance ran contrary to the state’s election code.

Still, Texas’ lawyers argued in their brief seeking to undermine confidence in the state’s results argued that such disparate policies sowed chaos, “preclude knowing who legitimately won the 2020 election, and threaten to cloud all future elections.”

It is not clear if and when the Supreme Court intends to rule on either case, or any of the other petitions still before it tied to smaller-scale election battles arising from Pennsylvania.

But legal experts predict a swift decision. Tuesday is the federal deadline known as the “safe harbor date” for states to resolve all outstanding election disputes and lock-in their slates of delegates to the Electoral College.

Trump’s allies argue that the deadline not a drop-dead date enshrined in the Constitution but rather a vague time limit established in a law passed by Congress in 1887, after another postelection standoff between President Rutherford B. Hayes and Samuel Tilden the year before.

The courts could still ostensibly move to intervene in any challenge up until the electors cast their votes on Dec. 14, but the U.S. Supreme Court in particular has used the “safe harbor date” as a guideline in the past.

When deciding the disputed election contest between President George W. Bush and former Vice President Al Gore in 2000, the justices cited the fast-approaching deadline as a reason that Florida did not have time to initiate another in a string of recounts that it had launched that year.
 
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...020-safe-harbor-deadline-congress-republicans

The US election's 'safe harbor' deadline is here. What does that mean for Biden?
This year, 8 December is the so-called “safe harbor” deadline, which federal law says must fall six days before electors meet across the country to cast their votes for president. The statute says that as long as states use existing state law to resolve disputes about electors by the deadline, the votes cast by those electors will be “conclusive”. It is meant to act as a safeguard so that Congress, which will count the electoral votes on 6 January, can’t second-guess or overturn the election results.
Kliknite za proširenje...
Lacking safe harbor status doesn’t mean a state’s electoral votes are going to be rejected by Congress. It just means that they’re arriving in Congress without the benefit of a super-shield, if you will.
Kliknite za proširenje...
And that opens the door for Congress to second-guess the electoral votes that Wisconsin is sending?
Congress should treat safe harbor status in the way the law calls for it to be treated. It’s conclusive. There shouldn’t be any objections filed to anything that a member of Congress believes to have safe harbor status. But if it doesn’t have safe harbor status, then I think it opens it up, as you said, to congressional second-guessing, in a way that safe harbor status shouldn’t.
Kliknite za proširenje...
A lot of people are going to hear that and say: ‘If it’s up to Congress to police itself, that’s not reassuring.’ I think a lot of people will have a hard time believing there are going to be Republican senators, with a few exceptions, that aren’t willing to go along with an objection.
I totally get the realism there. And I understand why readers would want to think that. But here’s where I think maybe the safe harbor concept might provide a buffer for some.
Take someone like Senator Rob Portman of Ohio. It might be that the concept of this super-shield could actually help him both in his own internal and mental deliberations and also with his constituency, by saying: ‘Look, I’m trying to do a job here and the job I’m supposed to do is respect state law. I’ve been told by the relevant act of Congress that I’m obligated to accept the state’s judgment. I’m not going to ask myself who won Georgia. I’m only going to ask myself whether Georgia reached a final answer.’
Kliknite za proširenje...
How concerned should people be if a state like Wisconsin doesn’t meet safe harbor?
...that’s going to cause there to be a repeat of what happened in 2004 … I think there will be roll-call votes.
Even though Biden’s going to be inaugurated, if a lot of senators go on record agreeing with Brooks, that’s agreeing with a claim that Biden didn’t win those states.
Kliknite za proširenje...
I think that’s a very likely scenario.
It’s taking us into a realm of American politics that I’m not sure we’ve had before. I mean, it’s a denial of reality that’s very dangerous.
Elections require accepting results, even if your team loses. Your team will win next time, maybe. You give the winning team a chance to govern based on what the voters said this time. You have to acknowledge that reality. For significant numbers of members of Congress, going on the record, if that’s what happens, in defiance of that reality, that will be really dangerous for the operation of competitive elections.
Kliknite za proširenje...
 
.
Јбт, десила се најспектакуларнија крађа избора у историји избора која је спектакуларно проваљена.

Сви то виде и свима је апсолутно јасно.

И одједном, сви су изненађени како покрадени не признаје да је све поштено било.

Мсм, да ли сте ви нормални???

.
 
pustos:
https://www.inquirer.com/news/penns...e-kelly-ted-cruz-tom-wolf-trump-20201208.html


Texas asks SCOTUS to throw out Pa.’s election results as Democratic officials press for an end to ‘frivolous’ GOP litigation


Pennsylvania officials urged the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday to finally put an end to a wave of what they described as a last-minute “frivolous” lawsuits from Republican allies of President Donald Trump, arguing that nothing less than the integrity of the judiciary and the sanctity of constitutional democracy was at stake.

But despite their pleas, the onslaught of increasingly shaky litigation kept coming.

Late Monday night, the state of Texas joined the expanding list of naysayers knocking at courthouse doors by asking the Supreme Court’s justices for leave to sue Pennsylvania as well as Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin. It decried what it described as “significant and unconstitutional irregularities” in voting processes in each battleground and urged the justices to throw out their election results and appoint each state’s legislature to decide the winner instead.

That fight joins a collection of other eleventh-hour legal battles, including a bid before the justices from U.S. Rep. Mike Kelly (R., Pa.) and one before a Pennsylvania appellate court led by state Rep. Daryl Metcalfe (R., Butler) — both seeking court orders to invalidate the state’s certified election results.

But that last-minute spasm of activity comes as the president appears to have largely given up on his own legal battles in the state. After suffering more than a dozen consecutive losses in his attempt to challenge the Pennsylvania election results in state and federal courts, his campaign has not appealed any of its Pennsylvania-focused litigation to the U.S. Supreme Court and has not sought to join any of the more recent lawsuits brought by his GOP allies.

Instead, his focus appears to have shifted toward leaning on lawmakers in Harrisburg and Washington to make an end run around the courts. The Washington Post reported Monday that Trump had personally leaned on Pennsylvania state House Speaker Bryan Cutler (R., Lancaster) twice in the past week, seeking his assistance in reversing President-elect Joe Biden’s victory in the state — a tactic the president has also deployed with elected leaders in Michigan and Georgia.


Cutler rebuffed him both times, saying the state legislature had no legal authority to interfere. But late Friday, the speaker signed a letter along with 63 other Republican colleagues in the state House urging Pennsylvania’s Congressional delegation to reject the state’s Electoral College votes when Congress meets in January to sign off on the final vote.

Many of those same lawmakers filed a brief in support of Kelly’s suit before the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday, urging the justices to effectively roll back Pennsylvania’s certified results, which declared Joe Biden the victor by some 81,000 votes.

Kelly has argued that last year’s statute that expanded the ability to vote by mail in the state was improperly passed as a law by the GOP-controlled legislature when it should have been subjected to the more rigorous process of amending the state constitution. He has pushed for disqualifying every ballot cast by mail in the state and has asked the Supreme Court justices to issue an injunction invalidating Pennsylvania’s results until his case can be fully argued and decided by the courts.

On Tuesday, lawyers for Wolf and the state’s Democratic legislators balked at Kelly’s arguments — noting that many of the GOP lawmakers who had signed on in support of the congressman’s suit had originally voted for the law they are now calling unconstitutional — and the remedy he is now seeking before the court, noting he is effectively calling for the disenfranchisement of the entire state.


Kelly, they wrote, “asks this court to undertake one of the most dramatic, disruptive invocations of judicial power in the history of the republic. No court has ever issued an order nullifying a governor’s certification of presidential election results. And for good reason.”

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas) has said he will argue the congressman’s case himself should the Supreme Court decide to hear oral arguments — a fact Kelly’s lawyer confirmed Monday — saying the constitutional integrity of the 2020 election is at stake.

But meanwhile, Cruz’s state moved forward with its own legal challenge based in the argument that Pennsylvania election officials and state judges usurped the authority of their state legislatures by implementing policies or passing rulings that Republicans say ran contrary to what lawmakers had originally intended.

For instance, Republicans have repeatedly pushed back against guidance Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar gave to counties to allow voters the chance to correct mistakes on their mail ballots by Election Day. Some Democratic-leaning counties followed that guidance, other Republican ones refused to do so.

But state and federal courts in Pennsylvania have rejected GOP arguments that Boockvar’s guidance ran contrary to the state’s election code.

Still, Texas’ lawyers argued in their brief seeking to undermine confidence in the state’s results argued that such disparate policies sowed chaos, “preclude knowing who legitimately won the 2020 election, and threaten to cloud all future elections.”

It is not clear if and when the Supreme Court intends to rule on either case, or any of the other petitions still before it tied to smaller-scale election battles arising from Pennsylvania.

But legal experts predict a swift decision. Tuesday is the federal deadline known as the “safe harbor date” for states to resolve all outstanding election disputes and lock-in their slates of delegates to the Electoral College.

Trump’s allies argue that the deadline not a drop-dead date enshrined in the Constitution but rather a vague time limit established in a law passed by Congress in 1887, after another postelection standoff between President Rutherford B. Hayes and Samuel Tilden the year before.

The courts could still ostensibly move to intervene in any challenge up until the electors cast their votes on Dec. 14, but the U.S. Supreme Court in particular has used the “safe harbor date” as a guideline in the past.

When deciding the disputed election contest between President George W. Bush and former Vice President Al Gore in 2000, the justices cited the fast-approaching deadline as a reason that Florida did not have time to initiate another in a string of recounts that it had launched that year.
Kliknite za proširenje...
Todor Krstić je ljiga nad ljigama.

On i njegova DILF bradurina.
 
stanje
Zatvorena za pisanje odgovora.

Slične teme

Duskwood
Tramp povezao Srbiju sa pokušajem krađe predsedničkih izbora u SAD
Odgovora
13
Pregleda
259
Majstor Života
Majstor Života
Sizif
Tramp: SAD pokušavaju da povrate ključnu bazu u Avganistanu
Odgovora
24
Pregleda
483
ИПХ ЗИЛОТ
ИПХ ЗИЛОТ
CAHJAP
  • Anketa Anketa
Kome Tramp služi
Odgovora
10
Pregleda
321
Vlad88
V

Back
Top