Texas GOP Passes Resolution Declaring Biden ‘Not Legitimately Elected’

[DamianTV]

https://www.theepochtimes.com/texas-...QnscSdWRWijYA=

Texas Republicans passed a resolution on June 18 stating that President Joe Biden was “not legitimately elected,” and that “substantial” election fraud in key metropolitan areas influenced the results of the 2020 presidential election in favor of Biden.

“We believe that the 2020 election violated Article 1 and 2 of the US Constitution, that various secretaries of state illegally circumvented their state legislatures in conducting their elections in multiple ways, including by allowing ballots to be received after November 3, 2020,” stated a resolution passed on Saturday, the last day of a three-day biennial Texas GOP convention held in Houston, the Texas Tribune reported.

“We believe that substantial election fraud in key metropolitan areas significantly affected the results in five key states in favor of Joseph Robinette Biden Jr,” the resolution continued.

“We reject the certified results of the 2020 Presidential election, and we hold that acting President Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. was not legitimately elected by the people of the United States,” it added.

The state’s GOP, the largest in the nation, passed the resolution after delegates sat through a Thursday screening of “2000 Mules,” a documentary directed by conservative author and filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza.

The movie features the undercover investigative work of David Lara, a citizen investigator, and Arizona State Senate candidate Gary Snyder, as well as investigations conducted by the election integrity organization “True The Vote” on an alleged coordinated ballot trafficking operation during the 2020 election.

Described as an exposé of “widespread, coordinated voter fraud in the 2020 election,” the movie draws on cell phone location data paired with video surveillance footage that allegedly showed a cohort of people dropping ballots off at drop boxes situated outdoors on average more than 20 times each. Those people were dubbed by the investigators as “mules.”

While some states allow people to gather ballots from certain people and drop them off, the volume of ballots inserted into the boxes, and the fact that the people went to multiple boxes to drop ballots off, showed what happened was illegal, filmmakers say.

“The mules are instructed to do three votes over here or five votes over there, 10 votes over here, they spread it around so as not to raise eyebrows and not to raise suspicion,” D’Souza previously said on EpochTV’s “Crossroads.”The scale of the operation was enough to tip the 2020 election, he added.

The Texas GOP passed the resolution on Saturday afternoon during a voting session on the party’s platform and legislative priorities.

The approved platform also recommends numerous measures to bolster election integrity, including by implementing voter photo ID and in-person voting, and tightening the voter registration process.

Other issues endorsed in the state Republican’s latest platform include a call to abolish abortion, preserve gun rights, remove Marxist ideology and critical race theory from schools, and ban gender modification of children.

James Wesolek, communication director for the Republican Party of Texas, told The Epoch Times that 5,500 delegates attended the convention, which offers Republicans an opportunity to set priorities for the next legislative session in 2023 and elect party leaders.

“Remember, the Republican Party of Texas is a grassroots party,” Matt Rinaldi, chairman of the Republican Party of Texas, told attendees of the contention, Houston Public Media reported. “It doesn’t belong to me, the governor, or senators or congressmen, or any elected official. This is your party.”

According to the U.S. National Archives, Joe Biden received 306 electoral votes in the 2020 election and Donald Trump received 232 electoral votes. Trump and conservative figures across the country have alleged since then that substantial fraud influenced the 2020 election results. Democrats and mainstream media have vociferously denied such allegations, claiming them to be unfounded.

The Texas GOP, in the resolution, called on voting conservatives in the state to work to “overwhelm” any possibility of voter fraud.

“We strongly urge all Republicans to work to ensure election integrity and to show up to vote in November of 2022, bring your friends and family, volunteer for your local Republicans, and overwhelm any possible fraud,” the resolution stated.

The Epoch Times has reached out to the White House for comment.

Zachary Stieber and Darlene McCormick Sanchez contributed to this report.

And there is an Infowars Poll:

How Will Democrats Try To Win 2022 Midterms?

- Rig the elections 83%
- Demonize opposition 10%
- Tout Biden's 'accomplishments' 2%
- Fix inflation crisis 5%

Total: 38,147

[oyarde]

tout bidens accomplishments 2 percent ? That must be a joke. Even the avg retarded person could clearly see there are zero accomplishments worthy of bragging .

[Invisible Man]

“We believe that substantial election fraud in key metropolitan areas significantly affected the results in five key states in favor of Joseph Robinette Biden Jr,” the resolution continued.

Five key states, of which Texas is not one.

Have any of the legislatures of any of those 5 states passed any similar resolutions repudiating the results that they certified for their states? They've had plenty of time to. If not, then it would seem that those legislatures all accept that votes cast by their states' electors were indeed cast as directed by those same state legislatures, as the US Constitution requires.

[donnay]

tout bidens accomplishments 2 percent ? That must be a joke. Even te avg retarded person could clearly see there are zero accomplishments worthy of bragging .

That could be 2% believe he has accomplished the part of destroying our country. Which is exactly the goals of the demoncrats.

[DamianTV]

That could be 2% believe he has accomplished the part of destroying our country. Which is exactly the goals of the demoncrats.

Im considering this also.

Our govt pays people to disrupt public opinion. So that 2% may well be paid to interfere with Infowars Polls. You know, kind of like ZippyJuan and Invisible Man both seem to do here... And it isnt like they require registration to vote in the polls...

That being said, the Demon-crats have done everything in their power to interfere and disrupt the lawful investigations. I think those people need to be sentenced to PRISON. The Demon-crats WILL THROW YOU IN PRISON so long as they have the power to do so, just like they have done to Dr. Simone Gold, for having SPOKEN at the US Capitol on Jan 6th:

Dr. Simone Gold sentenced to PRISON for speaking at U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021
https://www.naturalnews.com/2022-06-...january-6.html

The Demon-crats rule BY FEAR AND INTIMIDATION. They DO NOT ADHERE TO THE CONCEPT OF THE LAW APPLIES EQUALLY TO EVERYONE. It is just fine for them to LIE THREATEN STEAL AND EVEN MURDER because in their delusional minds, "the ends justifies the means".

[Occam's Banana]

“We believe that substantial election fraud in key metropolitan areas significantly affected the results in five key states in favor of Joseph Robinette Biden Jr,” the resolution continued.

Five key states, of which Texas is not one.

Have any of the legislatures of any of those 5 states passed any similar resolutions repudiating the results that they certified for their states? They've had plenty of time to. If not, then it would seem that those legislatures all accept that votes cast by their states' electors were indeed cast as directed by those same state legislatures, as the US Constitution requires.

This was covered in the paragraph preceding the one you cited:

“We believe that the 2020 election violated Article 1 and 2 of the US Constitution, that various secretaries of state illegally circumvented their state legislatures in conducting their elections in multiple ways, including by allowing ballots to be received after November 3, 2020,” stated a resolution passed on Saturday, the last day of a three-day biennial Texas GOP convention held in Houston, the Texas Tribune reported.

Whether one agrees or not, the resolution frames the absence of repudiation by those other states as lacking dispositive weight. The resolution contends that the certifications by those other states of their own electors' votes were Constitutionally illegitimate - hence, any subsequent failure to repudiate those certifications would be considered similarly illegitimate.

As for the question of Constitutionality (and in this particular case, whether those other states have conformed with the Constitution to the satisfaction of Texas), the states are the ultimate arbiters of what is or is not Constitutional.[1] The letter of the Constitution may have been observed in the qualification of the certifications of those other states' electoral votes, but that will do nothing to assuage the concerns of those who believe (correctly or incorrectly) that those electoral votes were nevertheless arrived at illegitimately.[2] They will simply say that the Constitution obviously did not intend that such (allegedly) illegitimate votes be permitted to stand, merely because the legislatures of the relevant states chose to do nothing about it - and that therefore, Texas is not Constitutionally obligated to respect or honor the results.

So far, though, this is just a "resolution" (i.e., just words on paper) issued by a political party in one state, and not an official act (or declaration backed by threat of force) by a state government. So far.[3]



[1] The fact that, as a practical matter, the United States Supreme Court has historically and routinely been given deference by the states in such matters is to the contrary notwithstanding. Once a sufficient number of states possess the will and wherewithal to deny the Court's putative authority as final arbiter of what is or is not "constitutional" (a power which it was never actually granted, but rather arrogated to itself), then the proverbial gig is up for SCOTUS, except as a mediator of disputes between the states (which is just as it should be, and always should have been - granting, arguendo, that the Constitution ought even to have been enacted in the first place).

[2] Parliament and the Crown may have observed the letter of British law in the passage and enforcement of the Stamp Act, the Intolerable Acts, etc., for all the difference it made.

[3] Recall that all the inveighing against the Stamp Act, Intolerable Acts, etc. were just so many "resolutions", too - until one day ...

[Occam's Banana]

[...]

So far, though, this is just a "resolution" (i.e., just words on paper) issued by a political party in one state, and not an official act (or declaration backed by threat of force) by a state government. So far.[3]

[...]

[3] Recall that all the inveighing against the Stamp Act, Intolerable Acts, etc. were just so many "resolutions", too - until one day ...

https://twitter.com/ChuckCallesto/st...64878932721664

//

[Brian4Liberty]

Five key states, of which Texas is not one.

Have any of the legislatures of any of those 5 states passed any similar resolutions repudiating the results that they certified for their states? They've had plenty of time to. If not, then it would seem that those legislatures all accept that votes cast by their states' electors were indeed cast as directed by those same state legislatures, as the US Constitution requires.

Kind of like the old saying "we investigated ourselves, and found no evidence of wrongdoing", except they modified that to say "there was no wrongdoing, so there is no need for an investigation".

[Occam's Banana]

https://twitter.com/michaelmalice/st...37915191042049

[Occam's Banana]

Timcast IRL - Texas GOP Formally Declares Biden ILLEGITIMATELY Elected w/Angela McArdle
https://odysee.com/@TimcastIRL:8/tim...lly-declares:4

[Occam's Banana]

https://twitter.com/michaelmalice/st...37258362949633

[dannno]

Timcast IRL - Texas GOP Formally Declares Biden ILLEGITIMATELY Elected w/Angela McArdlehttps://odysee.com/@TimcastIRL:8/timcast-irl-texas-gop-formally-declares:4

That link was down for me, back up now.. but tube just in case.

[Sonny Tufts]

the Court's putative authority as final arbiter of what is or is not "constitutional" (a power which it was never actually granted, but rather arrogated to itself)

Article III of the Constitution granted the "judicial Power of the United States" to the federal judiciary. At a minimum, doesn't this encompass the authority to determine the law to be applied in a given case? And if that's so, it would follow that it has the authority to decide to apply the Constitution instead of a statute that violates the Constitution.

The States are free to call for a constitutional convention to get rid of judicial review if that's what they want. But be careful what you wish for -- you just might get it. A lot of folks who bitch about the Supreme Court's overturning laws as being unconstitutional also bitch about it when the Court doesn't. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...udicial+review

[Occam's Banana]

Article III of the Constitution granted the "judicial Power of the United States" to the federal judiciary. At a minimum, doesn't this encompass the authority to determine the law to be applied in a given case? And if that's so, it would follow that it has the authority to decide to apply the Constitution instead of a statute that violates the Constitution.


The States are free to call for a constitutional convention to get rid of judicial review if that's what they want. But be careful what you wish for -- you just might get it. A lot of folks who bitch about the Supreme Court's overturning laws as being unconstitutional also bitch about it when the Court doesn't. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...udicial+review

I didn't say that SCOTUS is not an arbiter of Constitutionality (or that the Constitution did not grant it any authority at all in that respect) - I said that it is not the final one. It is, at most, only penultimate in this regard.

The states are the ultimate arbiters of what is or is not Constitutional.

This must necessarily be the case, if only as a practical consequence of the states' capacity to withdraw consent to federated governance - a capacity which exists entirely regardless of what any piece of paper or panel of judges might have to say about it. The routine and habitual deference of the states to SCOTUS which has heretofore obtained is a product, not of the ostensible "supreme"ness of nine life-tenured political appointees and their opinions. but rather of the states' satisfaction (or lack of sufficient dissatisfaction) with those opinions [1] - because, again, they are the final and ultimate arbiters of such matters.



[1] Clarence Thomas appears to have understood at least something of this dynamic when he admonished the Court against the consequences of refusing to grant certiorari for the Texas v. Pennsylvania suit. Regardless of what one might think of the merits of that case, the Court's refusal to review the matter served only to feed the fires of discontent - a discontent which, for just one example, has become clearly and abundantly manifest in this Texas GOP resolution (and not just some generic public opinion poll). A hearing by SCOTUS, even had it resulted in a decision against Texas, would have ameliorated disaffection to at least some degree, quite possibly enough so as to obviate the eventuality of (or at least reduce the support for) things like this resolution.

[TheTexan]

As for the question of Constitutionality (and in this particular case, whether those other states have conformed with the Constitution to the satisfaction of Texas), the states are the ultimate arbiters of what is or is not Constitutional.

+rep this is an important point that bears repeating

[TheTexan]

Article III of the Constitution granted the "judicial Power of the United States" to the federal judiciary. At a minimum, doesn't this encompass the authority to determine the law to be applied in a given case? And if that's so, it would follow that it has the authority to decide to apply the Constitution instead of a statute that violates the Constitution.

The States are free to call for a constitutional convention to get rid of judicial review if that's what they want. But be careful what you wish for -- you just might get it. A lot of folks who bitch about the Supreme Court's overturning laws as being unconstitutional also bitch about it when the Court doesn't. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...udicial+review

The Supreme Court can rule all day that it is the ultimate authority, but that does not make it so. That authority belongs to the states, and the people, and this authority is inalienable.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

[Madison320]

This was covered in the paragraph preceding the one you cited:

“We believe that the 2020 election violated Article 1 and 2 of the US Constitution, that various secretaries of state illegally circumvented their state legislatures in conducting their elections in multiple ways, including by allowing ballots to be received after November 3, 2020,” stated a resolution passed on Saturday, the last day of a three-day biennial Texas GOP convention held in Houston, the Texas Tribune reported.

Whether one agrees or not, the resolution frames the absence of repudiation by those other states as lacking dispositive weight. The resolution contends that the certifications by those other states of their own electors' votes were Constitutionally illegitimate - hence, any subsequent failure to repudiate those certifications would be considered similarly illegitimate.

As for the question of Constitutionality (and in this particular case, whether those other states have conformed with the Constitution to the satisfaction of Texas), the states are the ultimate arbiters of what is or is not Constitutional.[1] The letter of the Constitution may have been observed in the qualification of the certifications of those other states' electoral votes, but that will do nothing to assuage the concerns of those who believe (correctly or incorrectly) that those electoral votes were nevertheless arrived at illegitimately.[2] They will simply say that the Constitution obviously did not intend that such (allegedly) illegitimate votes be permitted to stand, merely because the legislatures of the relevant states chose to do nothing about it - and that therefore, Texas is not Constitutionally obligated to respect or honor the results.

So far, though, this is just a "resolution" (i.e., just words on paper) issued by a political party in one state, and not an official act (or declaration backed by threat of force) by a state government. So far.[3]



[1] The fact that, as a practical matter, the United States Supreme Court has historically and routinely been given deference by the states in such matters is to the contrary notwithstanding. Once a sufficient number of states possess the will and wherewithal to deny the Court's putative authority as final arbiter of what is or is not "constitutional" (a power which it was never actually granted, but rather arrogated to itself), then the proverbial gig is up for SCOTUS, except as a mediator of disputes between the states (which is just as it should be, and always should have been - granting, arguendo, that the Constitution ought even to have been enacted in the first place).

[2] Parliament and the Crown may have observed the letter of British law in the passage and enforcement of the Stamp Act, the Intolerable Acts, etc., for all the difference it made.

[3] Recall that all the inveighing against the Stamp Act, Intolerable Acts, etc. were just so many "resolutions", too - until one day ...

I think it's a dangerous path to go down, this is federalizing the election. I think the states should have the right to tally up their votes any way they want.

[Occam's Banana]

I think it's a dangerous path to go down, this is federalizing the election. I think the states should have the right to tally up their votes any way they want.

Texas contends that the manner in which some other states tallied up their votes was illegitimate (or even fraudulent). Regardless of whether one agrees with that contention, if no reconciliation that is sufficiently satisfactory to both Texas and those other states can be found, then Texas is under no obligation to accept the validity of those other states' tallies, any more than those other states are obliged to conduct their tallies in a manner that pleases Texas.

If you disagree, and think that Texas should be obliged to accept their validity, then:
(1) how do you propose to impose this obligation upon Texas in manner that is not in some way "federalized"?
(2) why should the burden be on Texas to accept other states' tallies, but not also on other states to conduct their tallies in a way that is acceptable to Texas? (Is it not the case that "what touches all should be approved by all"?)

[Sonny Tufts]

I didn't say that SCOTUS is not an arbiter of Constitutionality (or that the Constitution did not grant it any authority at all in that respect) - I said that it is not the final one. It is, at most, only penultimate in this regard.

The states are the ultimate arbiters of what is or is not Constitutional.

I would say it's the people, not the states, who are the final arbiters. I would also say that Marbury v. Madison doesn't stand for the proposition that SCOTUS is the final arbiter on all constitutional issues. But it was the final arbiter in that case because it declined to issue the writ of mandamus Marbury was seeking. Since SCOTUS had been overruled at least three times by constitutional amendments it's clear it doesn't have the final word.

This must necessarily be the case, if only as a practical consequence of the states' capacity to withdraw consent to federated governance - a capacity which exists entirely regardless of what any piece of paper or panel of judges might have to say about it.

Will we have to have another civil war to put this proposition to the test? As Justice Holmes once said in another context, upon this matter a page of history is worth a volume of logic. Theoretically, I suppose there would be a critical mass of states that, if they (and their citizens) wanted to leave the Union, could do so without armed conflict, but it would have to be pretty high.

Regardless of what one might think of the merits of that case, the Court's refusal to review the matter served only to feed the fires of discontent - a discontent which, for just one example, has become clearly and abundantly manifest in this Texas GOP resolution (and not just some generic public opinion poll). A hearing by SCOTUS, even had it resulted in a decision against Texas, would have ameliorated disaffection to at least some degree, quite possibly enough so as to obviate the eventuality of (or at least reduce the support for) things like this resolution.

I respectfully disagree. First of all, I assume you're referring to the Motion for Leave to file a Bill of Complaint Texas filed; this was an original proceeding and not a certiorari matter. Second, the credulous pro-Trumpers who've taken over the Texas GOP (and those elsewhere) wouldn't have been mollified in the least if SCOTUS had granted a hearing, for two simple reasons: (a) the case would have been dismissed for lack of standing in any event, and (b) those who have swallowed Trump's lies about the election like so much Jim Jones Kool-Aid aren't going to change their minds no matter what.

[TheTexan]

Will we have to have another civil war to put this proposition to the test? As Justice Holmes once said in another context, upon this matter a page of history is worth a volume of logic. Theoretically, I suppose there would be a critical mass of states that, if they (and their citizens) wanted to leave the Union, could do so without armed conflict, but it would have to be pretty high.

We cannot forever live under the threats of Abraham Lincoln's ghost.

Secession is an inalienable right, as is the right to self determination, and we cannot allow ourselves to be essentially bullied into staying in the union.

If the tyrants of today want to make the same mistakes of the past, and bring violence onto those who want only peace, then that's on them.

We will be prepared.

[Sonny Tufts]

If the tyrants of today want to make the same mistakes of the past, and bring violence onto those who want only peace, then that's on them.

If you want to argue from history, you might want to remember that the States that seceded did so in order to be able to continue to enslave people. This isn't some sort of woke myth dreamed up by the 1619 Project; you should read the Texas secession resolution:

[Texas] was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery--the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits--a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association... But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?

The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slave-holding States...

In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon the unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of the equality of all men, irrespective of race or color--a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of the Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and the negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States...

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding States.

https://www.tsl.texas.gov/ref/aboutt.../2feb1861.html

Who was the real tyrant in 1861 -- Lincoln or the slaveowner?

[Madison320]

If you want to argue from history, you might want to remember that the States that seceded did so in order to be able to continue to enslave people. This isn't some sort of woke myth dreamed up by the 1619 Project; you should read the Texas secession resolution:



Who was the real tyrant in 1861 -- Lincoln or the slaveowner?

So according to you secession should only be "permitted" if the entity trying to secede is "right"? You do see the problem there don't you?

I think you're missing the overall point of the right of secession. In general, guaranteeing right of secession helps keeps governments more free. Do you disagree?

[Madison320]

Texas contends that the manner in which some other states tallied up their votes was illegitimate (or even fraudulent). Regardless of whether one agrees with that contention, if no reconciliation that is sufficiently satisfactory to both Texas and those other states can be found, then Texas is under no obligation to accept the validity of those other states' tallies, any more than those other states are obliged to conduct their tallies in a manner that pleases Texas.

If you disagree, and think that Texas should be obliged to accept their validity, then:
(1) how do you propose to impose this obligation upon Texas in manner that is not in some way "federalized"?
(2) why should the burden be on Texas to accept other states' tallies, but not also on other states to conduct their tallies in a way that is acceptable to Texas? (Is it not the case that "what touches all should be approved by all"?)

There's not going to be a perfect system but allowing one state to protest the results of another state seems way worse to me than just accepting the results unconditionally. I can see all kinds of bad things happening.

For example suppose Trump barely wins in 2024 and then California protests that Texas was suppressing votes of minorities. So the federal government overturns Texas election results and Biden wins.

It sounds like you're suggesting that all 50 states should approve of the results? Ok, what if Trumps wins then California, NY, and NJ protest the Texas results. So by default until everyone agrees Biden stays in power.

The only way that you can give a state the power to overturn another state's results is to involve the federal government. I don't think it's Texas's business how California votes or vice versa.


Of course even better would be to just allow Texas to secede ...

[TheTexan]

If you want to argue from history, you might want to remember that the States that seceded did so in order to be able to continue to enslave people. This isn't some sort of woke myth dreamed up by the 1619 Project; you should read the Texas secession resolution:

Who was the real tyrant in 1861 -- Lincoln or the slaveowner?

Lincoln was the real tyrant. He did not invade the South to free the slaves.

Lincoln invaded the South to keep the South in the "indivisible" union.

An indefensible action.

People like to pretend nowadays that the North were noble liberators of equality. In truth they were almost as racist as the South.

The emancipation proclamation was almost entirely a political gambit to prevent Europe from entering the war on the side of the South.

The North was not noble, and neither was the South.

But it was the North who wanted the war. The South wanted peace.

[RJB]

I am tempted to move to Texas so that I can vote to elect TheTexan as the president of the new country of Texas.

[Occam's Banana]

Who was the real tyrant in 1861 -- Lincoln or the slaveowner?

This question embodies a rather bizarre false dichotomy, given that Lincoln was a willing abettor and would-be protector of human-chattel slavers, as clearly demonstrated by the following:

• In his (in)famous letter to newspaper publisher Horace Greeley, Lincoln made it clear that he would willingly consign every single slave to continued enslavement as long as it meant that he got to be President of all the former Union, instead of just part of it.
• In his first inaugural, Lincoln offered his support for (and later endorsed) the so-called "Corwin Amendment", which would have become the 13th Amendment to Constitution of the United States (had not the later secession of South Carolina, et al. effectively rendered the issue moot). The amendment would have guaranteed federal protection for the practice of human chattel slavery in perpetuo.
• After South Carolina, et al. seceded, four slave states (Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri) remained in the Union, and one slave state was admitted (West Virginia) - about which Lincoln did nothing, and was not inclined to do anything.
• Lincoln's much-vaunted "Emancipation Proclamation" explicitly exempted virtually all slaves under Union purview - including not only those in the five aforementioned Union slave states, but also those in captured Confederate territory, such as a number of counties in Mississippi (where the US Army would continue their enslavement in order to erect and maintain defensive works and fortifications).

In light of all this (and more that has not been mentioned), the question is not, "Who was the real tyrant - Lincoln, or the slaveowner?"

The question is, "Who were the real tyrants - Lincoln and the Union slaveowners, or the Confederate slaveowners?"

And of course, the correct answer to that question is: "both".

But at least the latter did not come attached to Lincoln, who heartily and hypocritically endorsed secessionism to Congress in 1848. (Not that it really made much difference, I suppose - the Confederate politicians turned out to be just as hypocritical when it came to abrogating "states' rights" in the name of the "war effort".)

[ClaytonB]

Feds: If Texas secedes, we'll go to war.

Texas:

[Swordsmyth]

Feds: If Texas secedes, we'll go to war.

Texas:

There will be a civil war over it again, this time the leftists will lose and then we must deport all the survivors.

[Swordsmyth]

There's not going to be a perfect system but allowing one state to protest the results of another state seems way worse to me than just accepting the results unconditionally. I can see all kinds of bad things happening.

For example suppose Trump barely wins in 2024 and then California protests that Texas was suppressing votes of minorities. So the federal government overturns Texas election results and Biden wins.

It sounds like you're suggesting that all 50 states should approve of the results? Ok, what if Trumps wins then California, NY, and NJ protest the Texas results. So by default until everyone agrees Biden stays in power.

The only way that you can give a state the power to overturn another state's results is to involve the federal government. I don't think it's Texas's business how California votes or vice versa.


Of course even better would be to just allow Texas to secede ...

Don't be ridiculous.
Someone has to have standing to contest election theft on a national scale.

[Swordsmyth]

That could be 2% believe he has accomplished the part of destroying our country. Which is exactly the goals of the demoncrats.

This.
THEIR economy is stealing more wealth than ever.