Election 2020 > Blue State Secession?

I proved YOUR fallacies to be WRONG!

You have FAILED to prove that any of my FACTS are incorrect.

Sad!

 

You are partially correct. If you have already qualified for Social Security be getting enough quarters (about 10 years of full time work), then even if you lose your citizenship you can still get benefits. Medicare too, however the catch with that is that you can only use Medicare in the US, so if California secedes, you will have to cross borders to the US to get medical treatment.

I wish your state luck in it's independent future.

 

The northeast states and west coast states will only consider secession if Trump and his allies literally steal the election.

If this does happen our secession will be peaceful. Maybe we will join Canada. but we cannot be expected to remain part of a country that steals elections and steal supreme Court Justice nominations.

 

It is obvious, a Trump win would be accompanied by the accusation the election was stolen.

Nobody has stolen a Supreme Court nomination. Trump is still President, and one of duties is to nominate a replacement to fill vacancies on the Court.

 

when you follow one rule in 2016 to take away a nomination from the Dems and then the opposite rule in 2020 to take away another nomination from the Dems, theft has taken place.

GOP politicians can no longer be trusted.

 

No, it doesn't. Read the Constitution - specifically the 20th Amendemnt:

"If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified."

 

Are you open to the possibility that President Trump might well win the election without "stealing" it? Or are you going to consider any victory by President Trump to be a stolen election?

 

It looks like they are prepping their new country already.

 

if President has not been chosen than VP has also not been chosen.

then it goes to the Speaker of the House, and then Senior member of Senate

 

Trump said the only way Biden can win, is if he cheats.

so...there you have it.

 

Please, do yourself - and me - a favor and go READ THE CONSTITUTION. If no slate of candidates wins a majority of the Electoral College, the Senate elects the Vice-President. It's a separate and independent contingent election from what the House does with the presidency.

ETA: and that Senate-elected VP will assume the duties of the Presidency if the House can't make a selection. It doesn't fall to the Speaker. You're simply misinformed on this point.

 

That's not an answer to my question. I was asking about your view, not President Trump's.

 

ok, then in that case Biden becomes President.

his VP will be little mikey.

 

Fine. I agree. But, then the Republican Senate stole the seat that should have gone to Merrick Garland.

 

The Senate's only choices will be Vice-President Pence and Harris. Again, if you'd read the Constitution, and make even a minimal effort to educate yourself before spewing your ignorance all over this thread, you would have already learned this. Stop just making **** up, please.

 

The Senate chose to withhold their "advice and consent". That's not "stealing", that's their prerogative.

ETA: And it was never a seat "should have gone to" Merrick Garland any more than Sandra Day O'Connor's seat "should have gone to" to Harriet Miers. See how stupid that sounds?

 

If you want to claim that the seceding Californians are going to retain their citizenship (a dubious prospect, I think) and thus still be eligible for Social Security, then as American citizens living abroad, they still owe federal income taxes. Ask some of those expats living overseas about that, or the IRS:

https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/taxpayers-living-abroad

 

Cherry picking AGAIN?

Why did you LEAVE out the REST of that clause?

Section 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.​

If there are INSUFFICIENT EC votes for the POTUS then the SAME applies to the VPOTUS ergo NEITHER have qualified therefore it falls upon the House to decide and the NEXT IN LINE is the Speaker of the House AKA Nancy Pelosi.

 

If after ALL of the votes are COUNTED, regardless of how long that takes, your wannabe Fascist-in-Chief wins the popular vote THEN it would NOT be "stolen".

 

Are you unfamiliar with how we determine the winner of presidential elections here in America (Hint: it is NOT the popular vote)? Or do you just refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of our method?

 

Because if the Senate elects the Vice-President then he "shall have qualified". If the Electoral College fails to give a majority to a pair of candidates, then a contingent election for the President is held by the House and a contingent election for the Vice-President is held by the Senate. It's entirely possible that the House, voting as state delegations, fails to select anyone for President, and the Senate, voting as individual Senators, succeeds in selecting a Vice-President. In that scenario, we get to the "the Vice President elect shall act as President" part.

They put that part in there for a reason. If your argument were correct (which it isn't) then there'd be no need to describe a scenario where we have a vice-president elect but not a president elect, because you don't think it's possible for such a scenario to arise. Clearly the Framers thought differently. Perhaps you should ponder on what they understood and you obviously do not.

I'm disappointed that there are people this constitutionally-illiterate out there.

 

Obviously you did not bother to READ your own link! :eel:

The first $100k plus inflation is EXCLUDED from Federal income taxes for ex-pats residing abroad.

 

I refuse to acknowledge the EC since it is a VIOLATION of the concept of Equality under the Law of the Land.

As an American Citizen I have a RIGHT to hold that position and I intend to do everything I can to ensure that the EC is ABOLISHED as it is a relic of RACISM and SLAVERY and has NO legitimate place in our nation given that it VIOLATES the VOTING rights of ALL citizens.

 

There are a fair number of rules around claiming that exception, but more importantly than that, in a scenario where suddenly there are an additional ~40 million expats claiming that exception, the remaining Congress - minus California's two dem senators and 45-ish representatives - could certainly choose to change the law to eliminate the exception. They probably would.

I don't understand why California secessionists think the remaining states wouldn't alter our laws to disfavor the secessionists. It's a complete pipedream to think they wouldn't.

 

*shrug* have at it. I suggest you start brainstorming things you can offer smaller states to win their support for your position, because thus far, it's a losing proposition.