I've heard this same rhetoric every 4 years.
Has a President been impeached twice, every 4 years?
Has the capitol been stormed every 4 years?
Another thing that is qualitatively different is the level of censorship. If you can't see that censorship has been taken to a whole new level, you haven't been paying attention.
If Republicans were an army they would not know the enemy and would shoot and masacre their own.
There will likely be an election, if only for the sake of appearances.
The Cathedral's dope pushers gotta keep people mellow with those blue pills, after all.
And the man who falls from the top of a 100-story building says he hears the same "you're gonna go splat" rhetoric as he passes each floor.
But "so far, so good," amirite?
At this point, I dont think the GOP will matter any more. Oh no! "Did we just damage something we were about to throw away anyway?"
If what I think is gonna happen happens, then both the Republican and Democrat parties will be fully dissolved. Those in power are gonna CHANGE LABELS and deem themselves YOUR OWNERS. You cant vote against YOUR OWNERS. You cant vote FOR your owners.
When Communism is at your door, you WILL NOT BE OFFERED A CHANCE TO VOTE ON IT.
Once they have control, they simply rewrite history, and kill anyone who reports the truth.
Truth is Treason in the Empire of Lies.
And those are all excellent arguments that Cruz made, and I am not bashing him for it or anyone who agrees with it.
However I think that Pence and Rand and Thomas and a few others realize that if they set that precedent now, then every election going forward there will be an elector fight in Congress, which would be absurd.
At that point, the proper resolution is to declare that those states have seceded from America by way of their unconstitutional actions.
And kick them out from America. The greatest,, best country in the world, has no room for Marxist fascist bs.
Just declare them out and be done with it
Let's keep this simple. On Jan 6, legislators had a chance to air the election fraud before the public. Instead Rand and Massie turned and fled.
They may represent someone, but it is not me, or the hundreds of thousands that gathered in DC that day to protest a fraudulent election.
Here's what standing for truth and "we the people" looks like. Rand and Massie should watch it a few hundreds times. Maybe they might grow a pair.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-xdZXwwpOs
An elector fight in Congress for every election going forward would indeed be absurd - utterly, astoundingly and farcically absurd.
It would also be wonderful, and is a thing that very much needs to happen.
Mass democracy on the scale of a third of a billion people cannot avoid being absurd, and the sooner this fact becomes undeniably obvious to as many people as possible, the better.
That precedent was better set than allowing voter fraud to undermine the very basis of the system itself. Color me unimpressed with their attempt to defend the Constitution while paying insufficient attention to something sapping the very foundation of the document's legitimacy for governing the people. If voting is fraudulent, then the Constitution's legitimacy is already thrown out the window as that is supposed to be the mechanism actualizing the so-called "social contract". Every politician that did not fight the fraud has left the right with two options to permanent leftist control via a corrupted voting process: secession or war. The former will inevitably lead to the latter.
Put more simply: would one rather deal with the realities stemming from voting being illegitimate or the electors clause? The solution here is simple: those on the right are completely disenfranchised with the former and still have a chance with the latter.
Thanks to how the right "defended itself", it is now at the point where it will get subjugated completely or wage a war that may not even be successful. Fun times.
Rand has always been concerned about the election fraud...
Quote:
Sen. Rand Paul, Republican
Sen. Rand Paul has repeatedly, and falsely, claimed the election was fraudulent.
"The courts have not decided the facts. The courts never looked at the facts. ... They stayed out of it by finding an excuse," he said at a hearing last month. "But the fraud happened. The election in many ways was stolen and the only way it'll be fixed is by, in the future, reinforcing the laws."
...
https://www.courier-journal.com/stor...id/4138909001/
except when it mattered.Quote:
Sen. Rand Paul has repeatedly, and falsely, claimed the election was fraudulent.
He was not concerned enough to actually do something about it at a critical moment and cited the Constitution as the reason not to do anything. Particularly disappointing is his quote, "The election in many ways was stolen and the only way it'll be fixed is by, in the future, reinforcing the laws."
"We'll fix it later!" is not a good response to cheating. Also, I do not have any idea why he thinks those laws will be reinforced by the leftists that draw their power from unethical behavior. Unfortunately, the only purpose Rand served on this was enabling the left. Nothing more.
No one is bound by the Constitution, but only by the force that others have the will and wherewithal to bring to bear.
It is the latter that is the source of political authority, not the Constitution.
And while might does not make right, being right without might won't get you anywhere. (ETA: This is why I don't think Rand should be held at fault, regardless of whether one agrees with what he did or didn't do. As of the moment, the might just wasn't there ...)
Riddle me this then. Why is there a clearly defined process for objecting to the electoral college count?
It seems you are saying that the only role of Congress is to sit there and passively listen to Pence read the count.
The action I wanted him to take was to give a voice for all the people that believe this election was fraudulent, and to object to that fraud on the Congressional record.
Was that stance going to prevail? Seemingly not. But the people deserve to be represented and heard. For the record.
Seems you believe otherwise Collins.
It is defined in the Electoral Count Act of 1887.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_Count_Act
So, it is not in the Constitution, but was an Act of Congress, which the Constitution permits and spells out procedures for and becomes law.
I don't think Rand would go so far as to say the Act is not legitimate. So.... what are you saying exactly?
Doesn't help that Trump is the Republican party. Unless the GOP dumps him, the party isn't going to go anywhere.
I'm not an expert, but reading the first few paragraphs of that link it would seem that the law you have cited does not deal with the situation presented to Congress recently. Most specifically there were no conflicting set of electors sent to vote at the electoral college. Also, for better or worse, Congress isn't bound to follow it's own laws.
Maybe some choose to be bound by the spirit of the law, but evidence of politicians being punished by the letter of the law is scarce.
People on the right are likely the only people that would take an unenforced oath seriously as concepts like duty and honor are self-imposed.
The fact is, representative and senators objected, in writing. It was good enough for the parliamentarian. Again, there is an established process for objections, in which members get 5 minutes each to speak, per state objected to.
Others used their 5 minutes to begin airing the election fraud. Seemingly, congress critters did not wish this to happen, and thus it was arranged that agent provocateurs storm the capitol, rather than let the public hear truth.
Rand used his 5 minutes to say essentially nothing. He may as well have not spoken at all. This was after the "rioters" had entered the building. But he began his speech by indicating he was already going to talk about states' rights and not about fraud. That's his right to do, but something I will always despise him for. He lost my respect that day.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electo...counting_rules
You can read more about the counting rules at link above. You and I are not constitutional lawyers. But there is a process; requirements were met; the parliamentarian agreed; senators and representatives were both beginning to speak out against the fraud and were preparing to do so for each state; the capitol got stormed; Rand and others chose not speak out about it. The end.