Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 79

Thread: Rand says GOP will lose 1/3rd of supporters if Senate removes Trump

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by TheTexan View Post
    Maybe. Maybe not.

    I think that Trump spurred events into motion that now cannot be stopped. The Left has gone into full-on authoritarian crazy-mode and the further they go down that path, the further it will drive this country into conflict or hopefully peaceful secession.

    I put the odds of there even being a Presidential election in 2024, at roughly 50/50.
    I've heard this same rhetoric every 4 years.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by 69360 View Post
    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.
    Last edited by TheTexan; 01-18-2021 at 05:02 AM.
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Rand Paul (Vice Pres) 2016!!!!



  4. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  5. #33
    If Republicans were an army they would not know the enemy and would shoot and masacre their own.

  6. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by TheTexan View Post
    I put the odds of there even being a Presidential election in 2024, at roughly 50/50.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by 69360 View Post
    I've heard this same rhetoric every 4 years.
    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?


    Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850)

    • "When law and morality are in contradiction to each other, the citizen finds himself in the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense, or of losing his respect for the law." - The Law (p. 54)
    • "Government is that great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." - Government (p. 99)
    • "[W]ar is always begun in the interest of the few, and at the expense of the many."
      - Economic Sophisms - Second Series (p. 312)
    • "There are two principles that can never be reconciled - Liberty and Constraint."
      - Harmonies of Political Economy - Book One (p. 447)

    · tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito ·
    MOFA (Make Orwell Fiction Again)

  7. #35
    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.
    1776 > 1984

    The FAILURE of the United States Government to operate and maintain an
    Honest Money System , which frees the ordinary man from the clutches of the money manipulators, is the single largest contributing factor to the World's current Economic Crisis.

    The Elimination of Privacy is the Architecture of Genocide

    Belief, Money, and Violence are the three ways all people are controlled

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Our central bank is not privately owned.

  8. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    What if the states send electors and

    a) It is apparent they did not follow the Constitutional laws of their state

    b) It is apparent they did not follow the Constitution of the US

    c) It is apparent there was massive vote fraud

    and as a bonus...

    d) The Republican majority state legislators are unable to rectify due to the Governor or Sec. of State blocking them from convening
    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.
    __________________________________________________ ________________
    "A politician will do almost anything to keep their job, even become a patriot" - Hearst

  9. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    What if the states send electors and

    a) It is apparent they did not follow the Constitutional laws of their state

    b) It is apparent they did not follow the Constitution of the US

    c) It is apparent there was massive vote fraud

    and as a bonus...

    d) The Republican majority state legislators are unable to rectify due to the Governor or Sec. of State blocking them from convening
    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
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Rand Paul (Vice Pres) 2016!!!!

  10. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Collins View Post
    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.
    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.


  11. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Collins View Post
    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.
    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.
    Last edited by Occam's Banana; 01-18-2021 at 03:35 PM.

  12. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Collins View Post
    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.
    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.
    Last edited by BSWPaulsen; 01-18-2021 at 03:44 PM.



  13. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  14. #41
    Rand has always been concerned about the election fraud...

    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/
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul
    They are what they hate.” - B4L


    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  15. #42
    Sen. Rand Paul has repeatedly, and falsely, claimed the election was fraudulent.
    except when it mattered.

  16. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    Rand has always been concerned about the election fraud...
    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.

  17. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by BSWPaulsen View Post
    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.
    Because he is bound by the Constitution and the Constitution doesn't give him the authority to take the action you wanted him to take.
    __________________________________________________ ________________
    "A politician will do almost anything to keep their job, even become a patriot" - Hearst

  18. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Collins View Post
    Because he is bound by the Constitution and the Constitution doesn't give him the authority to take the action you wanted him to take.
    At the very least, he could have followed Hawley's lead. Nothing was stopping him from doing so, not even the Constitution. He does not get points from me for abetting cheating in an attempt to avoid a constitutional problem.

  19. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Collins View Post
    Because he is bound by the Constitution and the Constitution doesn't give him the authority to take the action you wanted him to take.
    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 ...)
    Last edited by Occam's Banana; 01-18-2021 at 04:11 PM.


    Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850)

    • "When law and morality are in contradiction to each other, the citizen finds himself in the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense, or of losing his respect for the law." - The Law (p. 54)
    • "Government is that great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." - Government (p. 99)
    • "[W]ar is always begun in the interest of the few, and at the expense of the many."
      - Economic Sophisms - Second Series (p. 312)
    • "There are two principles that can never be reconciled - Liberty and Constraint."
      - Harmonies of Political Economy - Book One (p. 447)

    · tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito ·
    MOFA (Make Orwell Fiction Again)

  20. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    And while might does not make right, being right without might won't get you anywhere.
    This is more succinct phrasing than I have ever managed in expressing that point. Very well done.

  21. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Collins View Post
    Because he is bound by the Constitution and the Constitution doesn't give him the authority to take the action you wanted him to take.
    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.



  22. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  23. #49

    Thumbs down

    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    No one is bound by the Constitution, but only by the force that others have the will and wherewithal to bring to bear.
    Incorrect. If one takes an oath to the Constitution then they are bound by that oath.
    __________________________________________________ ________________
    "A politician will do almost anything to keep their job, even become a patriot" - Hearst

  24. #50

    Question

    Quote Originally Posted by danda View Post
    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.
    Where is that process defined in the Constitution?
    __________________________________________________ ________________
    "A politician will do almost anything to keep their job, even become a patriot" - Hearst

  25. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Collins View Post
    Incorrect. If one takes an oath to the Constitution then they are bound by that oath.
    Circular argument is circular.

    Bound by whom? By what means?
    Last edited by Occam's Banana; 01-18-2021 at 06:28 PM.

  26. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    Circular argument is circular.

    Bound by whom?
    Relevant given the number of government officials that routinely violate their oath and face no punishment.

  27. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Collins View Post
    Where is that process defined in the Constitution?
    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?

  28. #54
    Doesn't help that Trump is the Republican party. Unless the GOP dumps him, the party isn't going to go anywhere.
    "Perhaps one of the most important accomplishments of my administration is minding my own business."

    Calvin Coolidge

  29. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by danda View Post
    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?
    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.
    __________________________________________________ ________________
    "A politician will do almost anything to keep their job, even become a patriot" - Hearst

  30. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    Circular argument is circular.

    Bound by whom? By what means?
    Bound to themselves, and bound by the law.
    __________________________________________________ ________________
    "A politician will do almost anything to keep their job, even become a patriot" - Hearst



  31. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  32. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Collins View Post
    Bound to themselves, and bound by the law.
    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.

  33. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Collins View Post
    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.
    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.

  34. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by danda View Post
    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.
    And they did. Each got 5 minutes to say whatever they pleased. But none of it was going to affect the process of counting the votes and concluding the election process.
    "The one permanent emotion of the inferior man is fear - fear of the unknown, the complex, the inexplicable. What he wants above everything else is safety."
    H. L. Mencken

    Quote Originally Posted by Contumacious View Post
    Yes, indeed , we will never be able to prove fraud.

  35. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by danda View Post
    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.
    The parliamentarian judges parliamentary procedure, not the law.
    __________________________________________________ ________________
    "A politician will do almost anything to keep their job, even become a patriot" - Hearst

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 08-19-2020, 04:54 PM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-27-2018, 11:11 PM
  3. Replies: 23
    Last Post: 02-01-2016, 10:35 PM
  4. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-01-2015, 04:47 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •