Lost in the shuffle...
-
@xenon said in Lost in the shuffle...:
Almost 150 Congressmen / women voted to subvert the constitutional democratic process.
That makes no sense to me.
That's because they and their constituents feel that something is wonky with the election.
They are not subverting a democratic process. They are very worried the process wasn't as democratic as it should have been.
@jolly said in Lost in the shuffle...:
@xenon said in Lost in the shuffle...:
Almost 150 Congressmen / women voted to subvert the constitutional democratic process.
That makes no sense to me.
That's because they and their constituents feel that something is wonky with the election.
They are not subverting a democratic process. They are very worried the process wasn't as democratic as it should have been.
It’s doesn’t matter what people believe. It’s like if their constituents believed that justice wasn’t served in a specific court case - you can’t go vigilante justice on it just because you think your constituents believe something.
There is no legal basis for these people to object to the states’ votes.
Their oath is to the constitution - they must follow it, else what’s the point of the constitution?
-
@89th said in Lost in the shuffle...:
Feelings for evidence? Lulz
Ships have been sunk, wars have been started and empires have been toppled over feelings.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
@jolly said in Lost in the shuffle...:
@xenon said in Lost in the shuffle...:
Almost 150 Congressmen / women voted to subvert the constitutional democratic process.
That makes no sense to me.
That's because they and their constituents feel that something is wonky with the election.
They are not subverting a democratic process. They are very worried the process wasn't as democratic as it should have been.
It’s doesn’t matter what people believe. It’s like if their constituents believed that justice wasn’t served in a specific court case - you can’t go vigilante justice on it just because you think your constituents believe something.
There is no legal basis for these people to object to the states’ votes.
Their oath is to the constitution - they must follow it, else what’s the point of the constitution?
@xenon said in Lost in the shuffle...:
@jolly said in Lost in the shuffle...:
@xenon said in Lost in the shuffle...:
Almost 150 Congressmen / women voted to subvert the constitutional democratic process.
That makes no sense to me.
That's because they and their constituents feel that something is wonky with the election.
They are not subverting a democratic process. They are very worried the process wasn't as democratic as it should have been.
It’s doesn’t matter what people believe. It’s like if their constituents believed that justice wasn’t served in a specific court case - you can’t go vigilante justice on it just because you think your constituents believe something.
There is no legal basis for these people to object to the states’ votes.
Their oath is to the constitution - they must follow it, else what’s the point of the constitution?
And what was unconstitutional about their vote?
-
@89th said in Lost in the shuffle...:
Feelings for evidence? Lulz
Ships have been sunk, wars have been started and empires have been toppled over feelings.
@jolly said in Lost in the shuffle...:
@89th said in Lost in the shuffle...:
Feelings for evidence? Lulz
Ships have been sunk, wars have been started and empires have been toppled over feelings.
Yes. All 3 of those things are bad.
-
@xenon said in Lost in the shuffle...:
@jolly said in Lost in the shuffle...:
@xenon said in Lost in the shuffle...:
Almost 150 Congressmen / women voted to subvert the constitutional democratic process.
That makes no sense to me.
That's because they and their constituents feel that something is wonky with the election.
They are not subverting a democratic process. They are very worried the process wasn't as democratic as it should have been.
It’s doesn’t matter what people believe. It’s like if their constituents believed that justice wasn’t served in a specific court case - you can’t go vigilante justice on it just because you think your constituents believe something.
There is no legal basis for these people to object to the states’ votes.
Their oath is to the constitution - they must follow it, else what’s the point of the constitution?
And what was unconstitutional about their vote?
@jolly said in Lost in the shuffle...:
@xenon said in Lost in the shuffle...:
@jolly said in Lost in the shuffle...:
@xenon said in Lost in the shuffle...:
Almost 150 Congressmen / women voted to subvert the constitutional democratic process.
That makes no sense to me.
That's because they and their constituents feel that something is wonky with the election.
They are not subverting a democratic process. They are very worried the process wasn't as democratic as it should have been.
It’s doesn’t matter what people believe. It’s like if their constituents believed that justice wasn’t served in a specific court case - you can’t go vigilante justice on it just because you think your constituents believe something.
There is no legal basis for these people to object to the states’ votes.
Their oath is to the constitution - they must follow it, else what’s the point of the constitution?
And what was unconstitutional about their vote?
Don’t take my word for it:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/01/neither-pence-nor-congress-has-the-power-to-reject-state-electoral-votes/ -
@jolly said in Lost in the shuffle...:
@xenon said in Lost in the shuffle...:
@jolly said in Lost in the shuffle...:
@xenon said in Lost in the shuffle...:
Almost 150 Congressmen / women voted to subvert the constitutional democratic process.
That makes no sense to me.
That's because they and their constituents feel that something is wonky with the election.
They are not subverting a democratic process. They are very worried the process wasn't as democratic as it should have been.
It’s doesn’t matter what people believe. It’s like if their constituents believed that justice wasn’t served in a specific court case - you can’t go vigilante justice on it just because you think your constituents believe something.
There is no legal basis for these people to object to the states’ votes.
Their oath is to the constitution - they must follow it, else what’s the point of the constitution?
And what was unconstitutional about their vote?
Don’t take my word for it:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/01/neither-pence-nor-congress-has-the-power-to-reject-state-electoral-votes/@xenon said in Lost in the shuffle...:
@jolly said in Lost in the shuffle...:
@xenon said in Lost in the shuffle...:
@jolly said in Lost in the shuffle...:
@xenon said in Lost in the shuffle...:
Almost 150 Congressmen / women voted to subvert the constitutional democratic process.
That makes no sense to me.
That's because they and their constituents feel that something is wonky with the election.
They are not subverting a democratic process. They are very worried the process wasn't as democratic as it should have been.
It’s doesn’t matter what people believe. It’s like if their constituents believed that justice wasn’t served in a specific court case - you can’t go vigilante justice on it just because you think your constituents believe something.
There is no legal basis for these people to object to the states’ votes.
Their oath is to the constitution - they must follow it, else what’s the point of the constitution?
And what was unconstitutional about their vote?
Don’t take my word for it:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/01/neither-pence-nor-congress-has-the-power-to-reject-state-electoral-votes/I'm not taking McCarthy's word for it, either. That's an opinion piece and that's his opinion.
Do you have a SCOTUS cite?
-
Whenever people do something like this, they need to be reminded that next time the table might be turned on them, and in addition, the results might be worse than they are this time.
Like Obama with his pen and his phone, Trump with his baseless and frankly childish claims is setting a precedent.
Imagine if next time it's a Democrat President claiming fraud, but there's a Democrat Senate and House majority.
I was only joking
-
@xenon said in Lost in the shuffle...:
@jolly said in Lost in the shuffle...:
@xenon said in Lost in the shuffle...:
@jolly said in Lost in the shuffle...:
@xenon said in Lost in the shuffle...:
Almost 150 Congressmen / women voted to subvert the constitutional democratic process.
That makes no sense to me.
That's because they and their constituents feel that something is wonky with the election.
They are not subverting a democratic process. They are very worried the process wasn't as democratic as it should have been.
It’s doesn’t matter what people believe. It’s like if their constituents believed that justice wasn’t served in a specific court case - you can’t go vigilante justice on it just because you think your constituents believe something.
There is no legal basis for these people to object to the states’ votes.
Their oath is to the constitution - they must follow it, else what’s the point of the constitution?
And what was unconstitutional about their vote?
Don’t take my word for it:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/01/neither-pence-nor-congress-has-the-power-to-reject-state-electoral-votes/I'm not taking McCarthy's word for it, either. That's an opinion piece and that's his opinion.
Do you have a SCOTUS cite?
@jolly said in Lost in the shuffle...:
@xenon said in Lost in the shuffle...:
@jolly said in Lost in the shuffle...:
@xenon said in Lost in the shuffle...:
@jolly said in Lost in the shuffle...:
@xenon said in Lost in the shuffle...:
Almost 150 Congressmen / women voted to subvert the constitutional democratic process.
That makes no sense to me.
That's because they and their constituents feel that something is wonky with the election.
They are not subverting a democratic process. They are very worried the process wasn't as democratic as it should have been.
It’s doesn’t matter what people believe. It’s like if their constituents believed that justice wasn’t served in a specific court case - you can’t go vigilante justice on it just because you think your constituents believe something.
There is no legal basis for these people to object to the states’ votes.
Their oath is to the constitution - they must follow it, else what’s the point of the constitution?
And what was unconstitutional about their vote?
Don’t take my word for it:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/01/neither-pence-nor-congress-has-the-power-to-reject-state-electoral-votes/I'm not taking McCarthy's word for it, either. That's an opinion piece and that's his opinion.
Do you have a SCOTUS cite?
No, because the idea of doing this - throwing out electoral college votes - is so obviously anti-democratic that it hasn’t happened.
There been something like 1 or 2 objection votes since the electoral voting act was passed in 1887.
-
@jolly said in Lost in the shuffle...:
@xenon said in Lost in the shuffle...:
@jolly said in Lost in the shuffle...:
@xenon said in Lost in the shuffle...:
@jolly said in Lost in the shuffle...:
@xenon said in Lost in the shuffle...:
Almost 150 Congressmen / women voted to subvert the constitutional democratic process.
That makes no sense to me.
That's because they and their constituents feel that something is wonky with the election.
They are not subverting a democratic process. They are very worried the process wasn't as democratic as it should have been.
It’s doesn’t matter what people believe. It’s like if their constituents believed that justice wasn’t served in a specific court case - you can’t go vigilante justice on it just because you think your constituents believe something.
There is no legal basis for these people to object to the states’ votes.
Their oath is to the constitution - they must follow it, else what’s the point of the constitution?
And what was unconstitutional about their vote?
Don’t take my word for it:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/01/neither-pence-nor-congress-has-the-power-to-reject-state-electoral-votes/I'm not taking McCarthy's word for it, either. That's an opinion piece and that's his opinion.
Do you have a SCOTUS cite?
No, because the idea of doing this - throwing out electoral college votes - is so obviously anti-democratic that it hasn’t happened.
There been something like 1 or 2 objection votes since the electoral voting act was passed in 1887.
@xenon said in Lost in the shuffle...:
@jolly said in Lost in the shuffle...:
@xenon said in Lost in the shuffle...:
@jolly said in Lost in the shuffle...:
@xenon said in Lost in the shuffle...:
@jolly said in Lost in the shuffle...:
@xenon said in Lost in the shuffle...:
Almost 150 Congressmen / women voted to subvert the constitutional democratic process.
That makes no sense to me.
That's because they and their constituents feel that something is wonky with the election.
They are not subverting a democratic process. They are very worried the process wasn't as democratic as it should have been.
It’s doesn’t matter what people believe. It’s like if their constituents believed that justice wasn’t served in a specific court case - you can’t go vigilante justice on it just because you think your constituents believe something.
There is no legal basis for these people to object to the states’ votes.
Their oath is to the constitution - they must follow it, else what’s the point of the constitution?
And what was unconstitutional about their vote?
Don’t take my word for it:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/01/neither-pence-nor-congress-has-the-power-to-reject-state-electoral-votes/I'm not taking McCarthy's word for it, either. That's an opinion piece and that's his opinion.
Do you have a SCOTUS cite?
No, because the idea of doing this - throwing out electoral college votes - is so obviously anti-democratic that it hasn’t happened.
There been something like 1 or 2 objection votes since the electoral voting act was passed in 1887.
In other words, they did not act unconstitutionally.
-
@89th said in Lost in the shuffle...:
Feelings for evidence? Lulz
Ships have been sunk, wars have been started and empires have been toppled over feelings.
-
Whenever people do something like this, they need to be reminded that next time the table might be turned on them, and in addition, the results might be worse than they are this time.
Like Obama with his pen and his phone, Trump with his baseless and frankly childish claims is setting a precedent.
Imagine if next time it's a Democrat President claiming fraud, but there's a Democrat Senate and House majority.
@doctor-phibes said in Lost in the shuffle...:
Whenever people do something like this, they need to be reminded that next time the table might be turned on them, and in addition, the results might be worse than they are this time.
Like Obama with his pen and his phone, Trump with his baseless and frankly childish claims is setting a precedent.
Imagine if next time it's a Democrat President claiming fraud, but there's a Democrat Senate and House majority.
Trump has been an agent of change. Many times, for the good. He does shake things up.
Many states are in severe need of overhauling and strengthening the mechanisms of their elections.
Might be nice if that occurred...
