The FBI had a microscope up his ass since before elections and they have yet to find a crime he committed. So OK? That sentencing would be nil. Is he awful? In many ways for sure.
I'm going to stop you're BS right here. Have they met yet? No. Have the state's electors voted? No. Can results change if ballot recounts and audits show a different result? Yes. So do we even know if Biden will likely win? No. Would he be president elect if there was no dispute? Still no. But here is the part you are missing, regardless of what I said just now.... The electoral college has yet to meet and elect him. The key word is elect. Our elections are not for president but for who we want our elector to vote for and even then they can cast their vote for another person if they deem is necessary. It's a process you should learn more about before coming in here and acting like an expert. Maybe you should also go and kick your government/civics teacher for not teaching you properly.
Republicans mostly don't care about a fair democratic process. I'll go so far as to say that most Democrats in Washington don't care all that much about it either. But Republicans especially, and here's why. A fair democratic process would make the simple, fundamental act of casting a vote as easy and seamless as possible. And if everyone in the country voted, Republicans would lose the presidential election given the current demographics. This explains the Republican opposition to mail in voting and other attempts to make each person's influence on the outcome of the presidential election as equal as possible. They can act like it's about voter fraud, and throw out all sorts of unsubstantiated allegations (as they've done the past few weeks, shamelessly). But that's all BS. All politicians, whether Democrat or Republican, care foremost about staying in power, and for Republicans that means opposing voting accessibility and convincing people that making it easier to vote leads inevitably to fraudulent elections. You've been duped if you believe this is motivated by high-mindedness.
So... when Trump was considered President elect after the 2016 election and before the electoral college vote, you were complaining about that? I did a quick search and didn't see any posts from you about it.
so you're arguing semantics, is that what you're doing? we've literally made this exact same call for decades. sorry, I just jumped into this conversation but I'm trying to figure out what the whole point is? it's obvious he will become president, things are progressing exactly like they have for decades and decades, only difference is that the outgoing president, more or less purely out of spite, is denying the traditional transition to the new admin. Just wondering what exactly are you defending here.
@dachuda86 "Since 1963, U.S. federal law has empowered the General Services Administration to determine who the apparent election winner is and to help facilitate the basic functioning of the president-elect's transition team.[2] By convention, during the period between the election and the inauguration, the president-elect actively prepares to carry out the duties of the office of president and works with the outgoing (or lame duck) president to ensure a smooth handover of all presidential responsibilities."
Yeah, I don't get why this is a big deal. "President-elect" is not an official title. It is, as far as I'm aware, a designation for the person who is the presumptive winner of the election (in this case, Biden). I don't remember people waiting for certification before using "president-elect". Wild speculation/fantasizing about mass fraud that flipped the result shouldn't change how rational people look at this.
