January 6th, 2020 Congressional Vote Certifying the Presidential Election - OFFICIAL Thread

[Aratus]

Keep in mind, had Ms. Hillary Clinton gotten 5% to 10% more of the vote in places in 2o16,
had she been sworn in, when Paul Ryan was the Speaker of the House, it would have been
so damn easy for Mitch McConnell to suggest that she be impeached. he'd have briefly have
had Tim Kaine being the 46th POTUS. I am being fair & very serious about a control freak.

[Invisible Man]

How is it ironic? The Constitution has been a dead letter since 1865.

You're right in your diagnosis of the irrelevance of the Constitution in practice any more. But it's ironic because the post I was replying to gave the impression that the Trumpers want adherence to the Constitution.

[Aratus]

All he had to do is plead and arm twist. Or i am again wrong,
and he'd have had only ten Democrats turning on her. Maybe.

[dannno]

[familydog]

You're right in your diagnosis of the irrelevance of the Constitution in practice any more. But it's ironic because the post I was replying to gave the impression that the Trumpers want adherence to the Constitution.

Perhaps prior to the election they did want to adhere to the Constitution. That is all very much in doubt at this point. The right and the MAGA crowd seem to be realizing that you don't bring arguments and a speech to a knife fight.

[Sonny Tufts]

All of them. You can pay attention and rebut them yourself, or you can expose yourself as an uninformed tool as usual.

No, what specific points are you talking about? For example, Senator Toomey (R. PA) just argued that Congress has no authority to reject electoral votes when there aren't duplicate slates of electors from a state, as was the case in 1876. He's correct.

[Aratus]

How is it ironic? The Constitution has been a dead letter since 1865. The great unwashed are finally waking up to that fact. I work with the general public and so many people have asked "what is the point of the Constitution if it can't guarantee free and fair elections?"

The 2020 election was conducted unconstitutionally. Anything that happens afterwards regarding it cannot be judged on whether those actions are Constitutional or not. The court system has told us its a free-for-all now.

1865 or 1868? Give Number 17 some credit for having a grasp on 1800s Constitutional Law.
When ole Andy Johnson won the verdict he expected in his Impeachment Trial, he cut a deal
with some of the Radical Republicans where he said he'd be nice and not rock the boat much,
if they wouldn't impeach him again, as he tries to win the nomination of the Democratic Party
in 1868. 1865 or 1868? He deliberately fired Sec of War Edwin Stanton to see the sparks fly.

[Invisible Man]

All of them. You can pay attention and rebut them yourself, or you can expose yourself as an uninformed tool as usual.

If you're unable to articulate any points about the Constitution yourself, then aren't you the one who's an uninformed tool?

The Constitution is not some secret document that you should have been sitting there in the lead up to today waiting for Jim Jordan to tell you what talking points to use to figure out how to make it say that Congress should do something else today besides count the very same electoral votes that the states sealed, certified, and sent to them. It's publicly available for you to read what it says for yourself.

[asurfaholic]

Hmm. And your words do not sound like someone who has a healthy skepticism of the deep state. You're not alone here, BTW. There are a great number of people on RPF who have ruined this place either willfully or ignorantly defending TPTB, and I probably have more than half of the frequent RPF posters on my ignore list.

Why wouldn't TPTB cheat?

I mean, They have incited riots. They have ran a 4-year non-stop 25-hour/day 8-days/week media blitzkrieg against Trump, likely because they prefer a senile puppet for a president. They have ruined careers and livelihoods in their crusade for 'wokeness'. They have promised ponies and unicorns in exchange for votes. They have released thugs back out onto the streets while vilifying people well within their rights to protect themselves and their property.

Nah, I'm a fool, there was no election fraud. Most honest election ever.

This place has essentially become divided between:

People who want to expose the deep state, even if it might make Trump look good,

and

People who don't want to expose the deep state, because it might make Trump look good.

100% agree. This place used to promote freedom. Now it’s trolls and liberals. No sense in arguing with these idiots because they aren’t interested in debate or the truth.

[Invisible Man]

100% agree. This place used to promote freedom. Now it’s trolls and liberals. No sense in arguing with these idiots because they aren’t interested in debate or the truth.

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to asurfaholic again."

[dannno]

No, what specific points are you talking about? For example, Senator Toomey (R. PA) just argued that Congress has no authority to reject electoral votes when there aren't duplicate slates of electors from a state, as was the case in 1876. He's correct.

If you're unable to articulate any points about the Constitution yourself, then aren't you the one who's an uninformed tool?

The Constitution is not some secret document that you should have been sitting there in the lead up to today waiting for Jim Jordan to tell you what talking points to use to figure out how to make it say that Congress should do something else today besides count the very same electoral votes that the states sealed, certified, and sent to them. It's publicly available for you to read what it says for yourself.

You lazy $#@!s. They argued it over and over again in the Congress, the left never made any arguments against what they are saying. If you think they can argue against it, then why not let your local leftist congressman know so they can actually argue against it in CONGRESS??

Scroll to 2:15:40 for Mike Johnson from LA (if it's still in livestream mode.. once it goes out of livestream mode the timestamp will probably reverse and be about 1 hour 5 minutes in)

[Snowball]

I feel bad for the lady that was shot. She's in critical.

Trump is a real lowlife. IMO.

[Invisible Man]

You lazy $#@!s. They argued it over and over again in the Congress, the left never made any arguments against what they are saying. If you think they can argue against it, then why not let your local leftist congressman know so they can actually argue against it in CONGRESS??

And yet you still can't come up with anything.

I've actually read the Constitution. Have you?

[dannno]

I feel bad for the lady that was shot. She's in critical.

Trump is a real lowlife. IMO.

For telling people to be peaceful and go home?

[Sonny Tufts]

You lazy $#@!s. They argued it over and over again in the Congress, the left never made any arguments against what they are saying. If you think they can argue against it, then why not let your local leftist congressman know so they can actually argue against it in CONGRESS??

Scroll to 2:15:40 for Mike Johnson from LA (if it's still in livestream mode.. once it goes out of livestream mode the timestamp will probably reverse and be about 1 hour 5 minutes in)

He's wrong. Consider: suppose party A controls both the House and the Senate. A candidate from party B wins a majority of the electoral votes, all certified as legitimate by the state authorities. Are you seriously claiming Congress should be able to throw out the votes for the winning candidate by claiming the electors weren't properly appointed? What's the point of having an Electoral College in such a case? You're basically saying that Congress selects the President, not the Electoral College.

I notice that nowhere in his speech does he claim that the alleged changes to Arizona's election procedures changed the result that would otherwise have occurred. Well, if all you need to throw out a state's electoral votes is to show a deviation from election procedure, then Texas's votes should be thrown out because its Governor extended the early voting period contrary to the applicable statute. Indeed, the odds are overwhelming that some deviation, however slight, occurred in every state.

It's also ironic that he cites dicta in Bush v. Gore to support his argument. Nothing in what he cited supports the notion that Congress, as opposed to the courts, is to determine the legality of election procedures.

[dannno]

And yet you still can't come up with anything.

I've actually read the Constitution. Have you?

All I hear is a bunch of "blah blah blah blah" and nothing even close to a rational argument against the arguments presented in the video. It's less than five minutes, and you should have already watched it.

If congress can't present an argument, and all you can do is make excuses, then I already have my answer.

[Invisible Man]

All I hear is a bunch of "blah blah blah blah" and nothing even close to a rational argument against the arguments presented in the video. It's less than five minutes, and you should have already watched it.

If congress can't present an argument, and all you can do is make excuses, then I already have my answer.

You have not yet even attempted to make a point, so as to give me something to answer.

Make one, and I'll answer it.

I'm not going to waste one minute watching any videos.

[dannno]

He's wrong. Consider: suppose party A controls both the House and the Senate. A candidate from party B wins a majority of the electoral votes, all certified as legitimate by the state authorities. Are you seriously claiming Congress should be able to throw out the votes for the winning candidate by claiming the electors weren't properly appointed? What's the point of having an Electoral College in such a case? You're basically saying that Congress selects the President, not the Electoral College.

I notice that nowhere in his speech does he claim that the alleged changes to Arizona's election procedures changed the result that would otherwise have occurred. Well, if all you need to throw out a state's electoral votes is to show a deviation from election procedure, then Texas's votes should be thrown out because its Governor extended the early voting period contrary to the applicable statute. Indeed, the odds are overwhelming that some deviation, however slight, occurred in every state.

It's also ironic that he cites dicta in Bush v. Gore to support his argument. Nothing in what he cited supports the notion that Congress, as opposed to the courts, is to determine the legality of election procedures.

If there is evidence of serious voter fraud that has not been addressed that occurred in large part due to the rule changes, then yes, they should be thrown out. What is the point of having congress and the senate debate the issue?

[dannno]

You have not yet even attempted to make a point, so as to give me something to answer.

Make one, and I'll answer it.

I'm not going to waste one minute watching any videos.

I'm not going to type out a $#@!ing transcript for you.. the video I posted is literally the topic of this thread, so if you don't want to watch less than 5 minutes on it then don't $#@!ing bother commenting.

[Invisible Man]

I'm not going to type out a $#@!ing transcript for you.. the video I posted is literally the topic of this thread, so if you don't want to watch less than 5 minutes on it then don't $#@!ing bother commenting.

I wouldn't want you to type a transcript. If you have a point to make that you're capable of articulating in your own words, go for it.

If you're just going to defer to a video, where you take 2 seconds to post a link and then I have to take 5 minutes to sit through it and then more time doing what you refused to do by actually composing an answer, or worse, multiple answers to multiple claims made, in my own words to whomever was in the video as some kind of surrogate for you, I don't play that game.

If you actually had good reasons for supporting today's theatre, then you should have already had those reasons before today anyway, and not needed to wait for politicians who have devoted their lives to violating the Constitution to give you the excuses you need for today's example.

[dannno]

I wouldn't want you to type a transcript. If you have a point to make that you're capable of articulating in your own words, go for it.

If you're just going to defer to a video, where you take 2 seconds to post a link and then I have to take 5 minutes to sit through it and them more time doing what you refused to do actually composing an answer, or worse, multiple answers to multiple claims made, in my own words to whomever was in the video as some kind of surrogate for you, I don't play that game.

Good, keep watching CNN, what the $#@! do I care if you are addicted to fake news bull$#@!?

[Brian4Liberty]

Ron Paul weighs in. Go to 14:00 mark.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_vfbJ2KyW4

[Sonny Tufts]

If there is evidence of serious voter fraud that has not been addressed that occurred in large part due to the rule changes, then yes, they should be thrown out. What is the point of having congress and the senate debate the issue?

You still don't get it. If a party that controls both houses can throw out votes by saying there's fraud even when there is no fraud, you've destroyed the democratic process and repealed the Electors Clause.

[Invisible Man]

If there is evidence of serious voter fraud that has not been addressed that occurred in large part due to the rule changes, then yes, they should be thrown out. What is the point of having congress and the senate debate the issue?

This is what the 12th Amendment says. Please find for me the part in here about having Congress and the Senate debate the issue:

The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;-The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;-The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President-The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

[vita3]

Jim Jordan should take his mask OFF tonight or tmrw when House takes this up again. Much more effective imo

[Brian4Liberty]

One would think that these “deliberations” on the objections would consist of discussions of the objections, presentations of evidence, and rebuttal of evidence.

Instead, we get a bunch of five minute speeches on why or why not there should be a deliberation at all. It’s a filibuster, especially from the likes of McConnell and Schumer. They wouldn’t be in the damn room in the first place if there wasn’t a lawful and constitutional reason for it.

[Brian4Liberty]

The “deliberations” on the “objection” are continuing. Some woman is now talking about the Declaration of Independence.

[DamianTV]

I just watched a video of EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN voting FOR reviewing something to do with the election and unsurprisingly EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRAT voted AGAINST IT. It is OBVIOUS who the real enemy of We The People is.

[danda]

https://www.c-span.org/video/?507698...on-part-2&live

Mike Lee speaking now.

[enhanced_deficit]

GA Senator Kelly L. who just lost her seat just said that she can no longer object in good conscience.

MAGA blundering team's checkers flip flops in the face of 3D Chess of deep stage are failing again.