• 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.

Trump's Coup d'état.

Status
Not open for further replies.
borowitz-cruz-terrifying.jpg
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I don't think the Democrats can do that but McConnell can. Each party assigns committee seats with the leading party assigning the committee chair and they have one extra seat giving them the majority vote on each committee.
Click to expand...

You're right. Under present rules.

In theory the new Congress could vote for a draconian rule change that would allow it. But don't expect it.
 
Tero said:
[qimg]https://cdn.pastemagazine.com/www/system/images/photo_albums/cruz-memes/large/borowitz-cruz-terrifying.jpg?1384968217[/qimg]
Click to expand...


I see some people have already made the connection.

[imgw=500]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CAu5VDiWUAA6jiI.jpg[/imgw]
 
BobTheCoward said:
If it isnt legality, then what separates a coup from a dumb system for determining government?
Click to expand...

What the Senators are doing is not legal.

They cannot object in the case that only one set of electoral votes is received from the states. I can't remember the exact phrasing of the law, although we covered it just a few days ago. I think it is "regularly cast" or something like that.

You can't just make up some claim that the votes weren't regularly cast. Do these senators actually believe the swing state votes were fraudulent? If so, they could claim that "regularly cast", or whatever the exact phrase was, means that they weren't fraudulent. i.e. they could say that the fraudulent votes did not represent regularly cast ballots, so they don't have to accept them. However, if they do not believe the state votes were fraudulent, then to claim that they were not regularly cast would just be lying, and illegal.

I don't believe for one moment that these Senators actually have doubts about election integrity. I believe they are lying. They are unfit to serve as Senators, They should all be voted out at the next opportunity, and the laws and the rules of the Senate should be examined to see if there is any legal means to get rid of them sooner.
 
i don't think it would be any less of a coup if, for instance, gohmert was successful and Pence was "legally" allowed to choose the next president.

i think this is actually pretty serious stuff and there should be serious consequences. if you're a sitting senator and go to the senate floor to argue that voters from other states should be ignored because you don't like who they chose to vote for, it's an absolute dereliction of duty. the fact that they can go on the senate floor and argue that we should throw out democracy and allow a handful of senators or the vice president to pick the next president regardless of what the voters chose and walk away from that consequence free, it's not right to me.
 
Meadmaker said:
What the Senators are doing is not legal.

They cannot object in the case that only one set of electoral votes is received from the states. I can't remember the exact phrasing of the law, although we covered it just a few days ago. I think it is "regularly cast" or something like that.

You can't just make up some claim that the votes weren't regularly cast. Do these senators actually believe the swing state votes were fraudulent? If so, they could claim that "regularly cast", or whatever the exact phrase was, means that they weren't fraudulent. i.e. they could say that the fraudulent votes did not represent regularly cast ballots, so they don't have to accept them. However, if they do not believe the state votes were fraudulent, then to claim that they were not regularly cast would just be lying, and illegal.

I don't believe for one moment that these Senators actually have doubts about election integrity. I believe they are lying. They are unfit to serve as Senators, They should all be voted out at the next opportunity, and the laws and the rules of the Senate should be examined to see if there is any legal means to get rid of them sooner.
Click to expand...

They would probably have some discretion to determine whatever doubt means to them.
 
BobTheCoward said:
If it isnt legality, then what separates a coup from a dumb system for determining government?
Click to expand...
I don’t have a complete theory that covers all cases, but I know I
laid out one case in my last post, so it is possible.
 
Meadmaker said:
What the Senators are doing is not legal.

They cannot object in the case that only one set of electoral votes is received from the states. I can't remember the exact phrasing of the law, although we covered it just a few days ago. I think it is "regularly cast" or something like that.

You can't just make up some claim that the votes weren't regularly cast. Do these senators actually believe the swing state votes were fraudulent? If so, they could claim that "regularly cast", or whatever the exact phrase was, means that they weren't fraudulent. i.e. they could say that the fraudulent votes did not represent regularly cast ballots, so they don't have to accept them. However, if they do not believe the state votes were fraudulent, then to claim that they were not regularly cast would just be lying, and illegal.

I don't believe for one moment that these Senators actually have doubts about election integrity. I believe they are lying. They are unfit to serve as Senators, They should all be voted out at the next opportunity, and the laws and the rules of the Senate should be examined to see if there is any legal means to get rid of them sooner.
Click to expand...

The question is, will they object to states where Trump won? Election laws not followed in Texas. More votes than registered voters in Kentucky. Judicial Watch sued North Carolina for failing to remove ineligible voters from the rolls as required by the National Voter Registration Act. In Indiana charges filed for voter fraud.

Will these Senators be objecting to all of those states? Or is this maybe not actually about voter fraud and election integrity?
 
DevilsAdvocate said:
Objections must be made in writing without argument. So they actually CAN'T make a clear nd complete statement why they are objecting when they make the objection.

The objectors will be the first to speak in the House and Senate where they will lay out their argument. It will be the same general rubbish we have been hearing for weeks. They will most likely submit a big bunch of papers into the record.
Click to expand...
And at this point, what is to stop the leaders in each house simply dismissing these objections as unsustained based on prior findings by various courts, then moving on with the business of each house.
 
dirtywick said:
i don't think it would be any less of a coup if, for instance, gohmert was successful and Pence was "legally" allowed to choose the next president.

i think this is actually pretty serious stuff and there should be serious consequences. if you're a sitting senator and go to the senate floor to argue that voters from other states should be ignored because you don't like who they chose to vote for, it's an absolute dereliction of duty. the fact that they can go on the senate floor and argue that we should throw out democracy and allow a handful of senators or the vice president to pick the next president regardless of what the voters chose and walk away from that consequence free, it's not right to me.
Click to expand...

And if Pence is allowed that means Biden was allowed in 2016 to elect Killary.
 
DevilsAdvocate said:
The question is, will they object to states where Trump won? Election laws not followed in Texas. More votes than registered voters in Kentucky. Judicial Watch sued North Carolina for failing to remove ineligible voters from the rolls as required by the National Voter Registration Act. In Indiana charges filed for voter fraud.

Will these Senators be objecting to all of those states? Or is this maybe not actually about voter fraud and election integrity?
Click to expand...

What a silly thing to ask, of course there is no need to rerun elections where the people voted correctly.
 
Norman Alexander said:
And at this point, what is to stop the leaders in each house simply dismissing these objections as unsustained based on prior findings by various courts, then moving on with the business of each house.
Click to expand...

3 USC 15. That's the law that says how objections are handled. There is up to two hours of debate and then a vote. Nothing in that law grants authority to the leaders of either House to simply dismiss an objection as unsustained.

An objection is going to be something like "the votes were not regularly given" or that "the appointment of the electors was not lawfully certified."
 
Elagabalus said:
And if Pence is allowed that means Biden was allowed in 2016 to elect Killary.
Click to expand...

Since the lawsuit specifically says that this is not about asking the court to decide this election, I kind of wish the court had found a way to do what the Supreme Court did and push the case back until after the election and see if Gohmert would stick to his guns and argue that in 2024 Harris should be allowed to arbitrarily and without recourse choose what votes get counted.

The case was dismissed without prejudice, so he could still file suit against the correct parties, the House and Senate. If he is going to stand up for the Constitution and the rights of Congress, I fully expect such a suit to be filed January 21. Right?
 
DevilsAdvocate said:
Objections must be made in writing without argument. So they actually CAN'T make a clear nd complete statement why they are objecting when they make the objection.

The objectors will be the first to speak in the House and Senate where they will lay out their argument. It will be the same general rubbish we have been hearing for weeks. They will most likely submit a big bunch of papers into the record.
Click to expand...

I'm hoping, but not expecting, that sensible people in Congress are going to rightfully and harshly admonish those who object. No debate is necessary. Just don't be so bland as to claim it's your "Spartacus moment" or some such. Put the focus on the jerks.
 
alfaniner said:
I'm hoping, but not expecting, that sensible people in Congress are going to rightfully and harshly admonish those who object. No debate is necessary. Just don't be so bland as to claim it's your "Spartacus moment" or some such. Put the focus on the jerks.
Click to expand...

Just make the deliberations closed. Makes the whole exercise just a waste of time. No speeches reach the outside.
 
alfaniner said:
I'm hoping, but not expecting, that sensible people in Congress are going to rightfully and harshly admonish those who object. No debate is necessary. Just don't be so bland as to claim it's your "Spartacus moment" or some such. Put the focus on the jerks.
Click to expand...

They will. Get your bingo cards ready.

Rigged
Sour grapes
Get over it
Voter fraud
Bush v Gore
Hamilton
Jefferson
Dominion
There is no debate
Overthrow
Regularly given
Lawfully certified
Michael Moore
Boxer
Landslide
Electoral Count Act
Hoax
Coup d'etat
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom