• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Certifying the Vote.

Checkmite said:
After the vote in the Senate, McConnell mentioned that no other objections are expected in the Senate for the rest of the joint session once it resumes.
Click to expand...
As I posted above, I rather suspect Hawley has been "taken aside" and had a "stern talking to" by Mitch and the other heavyweights. He has had his little tingle of fun, but now he has been sent to the bench and the adults will play out the rest of the game. Siddown.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Scott Perry in the House is yelling his argument! :rolleyes:

They argue they are the ones upholding the Constitution. But this stuff was already hashed out in the courts, so this Congressman believes he knows better than the courts when the courts that heard the PA argument were all Republicans and some even appointed by Trump.

Now the Democrat Neguse is reminding Perry of what the actual Constitution says.

The Senate is already voting. Guess they'll get a nice 2 hour nap. Hawley really should have just shut up. What a jerk.
Click to expand...

I was wondering if they could cut short the debate. Clearly they can. Cool.
 
And for another pet peeve, there should be new House and Senate rules that you can't read quotes from previous lawmakers. I get that such quote can be relevant. But it just gets really trite. Unless used in a very appropriate circumstance, it is just a lame substitute for making your own statement.

And with that, I have not heard all of the speeches, but I am surprised that I have not heard someone quote Nixon's little speech from the vote counting in 1961. I quoted that in another thread, and it is probably the most relevant quote in this circumstance.
 
DevilsAdvocate said:
And for another pet peeve, there should be new House and Senate rules that you can't read quotes from previous lawmakers. I get that such quote can be relevant. But it just gets really trite. Unless used in a very appropriate circumstance, it is just a lame substitute for making your own statement.

And with that, I have not heard all of the speeches, but I am surprised that I have not heard someone quote Nixon's little speech from the vote counting in 1961. I quoted that in another thread, and it is probably the most relevant quote in this circumstance.
Click to expand...

I stopped watching it. Just waiting for the count to resume and conclude.
 
DevilsAdvocate said:
And for another pet peeve, there should be new House and Senate rules that you can't read quotes from previous lawmakers. I get that such quote can be relevant. But it just gets really trite. Unless used in a very appropriate circumstance, it is just a lame substitute for making your own statement.

And with that, I have not heard all of the speeches, but I am surprised that I have not heard someone quote Nixon's little speech from the vote counting in 1961. I quoted that in another thread, and it is probably the most relevant quote in this circumstance.
Click to expand...

Good Luck with that.
There are constant changes to the rules COngress runs by to speed things up, but they never seem to do anything. Legislatures always move slowly. We just don't see it unless you are a C Span Junkie.
Old joke that Legislation is like making sausage:you really do not want to see the process.
 
dudalb said:
Good Luck with that.
There are constant changes to the rules COngress runs by to speed things up, but they never seem to do anything. Legislatures always move slowly. We just don't see it unless you are a C Span Junkie.
Old joke that Legislation is like making sausage:you really do not want to see the process.
Click to expand...

It isn't a suggestion. It is a complaint. Actually a gripe.

Everybody has heard and knows these quotes. Hearing them again and again and again does not make the speaker insightful. It makes them lazy and lame. Stop it. Say something original.
 
Good, gravy! I can't believe how stupid and incomplete some Representatives are. Rep. Jeff Duncan is talking about the Pennsylvania law for mail-in ballots. He talks about how the Constitution grants the authority to make election laws to the legislation, not the court. And, therefore, all ballots whether cast by mail or in person are invalid...for some reasons.

And not realizing that the law for mail-in ballots was established by the legislature, not the court. It was the Republicans who asked the court to invalidate the law passed by the legislature. That is the who is basis for this objections. The objection is that that the law passed by the legislature is not constitutional. The objection is that the court should have overturned and invalided the law made by the legislature.
 
DevilsAdvocate said:
Good, gravy! I can't believe how stupid and incomplete some Representatives are. Rep. Jeff Duncan is talking about the Pennsylvania law for mail-in ballots. He talks about how the Constitution grants the authority to make election laws to the legislation, not the court. And, therefore, all ballots whether cast by mail or in person are invalid...for some reasons.

And not realizing that the law for mail-in ballots was established by the legislature, not the court. It was the Republicans who asked the court to invalidate the law passed by the legislature. That is the who is basis for this objections. The objection is that that the law passed by the legislature is not constitutional. The objection is that the court should have overturned and invalided the law made by the legislature.
Click to expand...

I know. I've heard this silly argument about Pennsylvania over and over and over again. They akways neglect that it was bipartisan legislation sponsored by 7 Republicans and 1 Democrat.

That the law was tested by the State Supreme Court, by a Trump appointed judg of the the 3rd Circuit. By a a 3 judge panel of the 3rd Circuit and by SCOTUS.
 
DevilsAdvocate said:
Good, gravy! I can't believe how stupid and incomplete some Representatives are. Rep. Jeff Duncan is talking about the Pennsylvania law for mail-in ballots. He talks about how the Constitution grants the authority to make election laws to the legislation, not the court. And, therefore, all ballots whether cast by mail or in person are invalid...for some reasons.

And not realizing that the law for mail-in ballots was established by the legislature, not the court. It was the Republicans who asked the court to invalidate the law passed by the legislature. That is the who is basis for this objections. The objection is that that the law passed by the legislature is not constitutional. The objection is that the court should have overturned and invalided the law made by the legislature.
Click to expand...
Is that how they do it where he comes from in South Carolina?
 
Miss Lindsey seems to have flipped her flop again. Until yesterday she was ready to throw the spanner in the works during the certification process...today, suddenly she has seen the light.
 
**** got pretty real for them today, i'm not surprised some of them backed off
 
Has Marjorie Taylor Green put in her share of crazy yet?
I'll be honest;not wathcing the house because I have my share of bloviating this evening.
 
dudalb said:
Has Marjorie Taylor Green put in her share of crazy yet?
I'll be honest;not wathcing the house because I have my share of bloviating this evening.
Click to expand...

I think I spheard her speak about 20 mintes ago. She's a loon.
 
Susheel said:
Miss Lindsey seems to have flipped her flop again. Until yesterday she was ready to throw the spanner in the works during the certification process...today, suddenly she has seen the light.
Click to expand...

My recollection is that Lindsey Graham has opposed the rejection of the elector all votes all along; at least publicly for the last several days or weeks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom