Democrats make demands for 126 House members not to be seated for the next Congress
By: MSN
Rep. Michael Burgess joins 'Fox & Friends First' to weigh in on the demands from Democrat Rep. Bill Pascrell.
Start at the :05 mark for some laughs.....................
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Duration: 04:012 hrs agoSHARESHARETWEETSHAREEMAIL Rep. Michael Burgess joins 'Fox & Friends First' to weigh in on the demands from Democrat Rep. Bill Pascrell. More From FOX News
UP NEXT
NOW PLAYING: Politics
Democrats make demands for 126 House members not to be seated for the next Congress
FOX News
Tags
Who is online
96 visitors
Guess Mr. Biden has a shorter than thought memory.......as well as a few others.......along with some of our members here.
How soon they forget!
They haven't forgotten, they just don't care.
It is different when they do it. The ends justify the means for them always.
Of course they are fine when one of theirs calls for any House member that supported Trump not to be seated. Not that they have the power to do it; but again the ends justifies the means.
They are also trying to steal a house seat in Iowa from the certified winner. The loser filed an appeal to pelosi to seat her instead of the certified winner.
It's BS political theater & pandering to the base. These Democrats can shout into the void if they want to, but leadership isn't that stupid. Just like the few Republicans that are calling for Congress to dispute the Electoral College results on Jan 6th. Neither of these things will happen.
They will be seated but they may have their useless futile seditious stunt held against them by voters!
If they are seated, the vote is over. So just who is going to hold something against them and how?
Do you not know what "sedition" means? Or do you just not care about using words according to their definitions?
There is nothing seditious about seeking a redress for election grievances in the courts. It's a right protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution.
The courts are part of government. Asking them for help doesn't attack government. It shows respect for government. Filing a shitload of lawsuits - even if you think they lack merit - can't be seditious.
(I want to apologize for the length of the rant which follows. I kind of got on a roll.)
I don't know which is more tiresome: I) the hypocrisy of politicians or II) the way they weave fantasies to whip up their supporters.
I) First the hypocrisy and total lack of self-awareness that allows these people to crow about protecting the "will of the people" while suggesting that duly elected representatives be blocked from the duty they were elected to by the people.
And to add a cherry to the madness sundae, the point is not even to contest those elections. No one is even doing that in the way Trump (legally) did. They acknowledge a legal election, but imagine they have the right to punish representatives this way. Amazing.
It blows my mind that Democrats have spent so much time whining about Republicans winning or exercising power within the law, e.g.: Winning the presidency in the electoral college instead of a national popular vote, denying or approving SCOTUS nominees according to authority found in the Constitution,
but Democrats want to achieve those things either by changing the rules, or just working outside the rule of law, e.g. get electors to ignore the legally required votes in their state, allow election procedures to be changed by individuals instead of legislatures, or by eliminating the electoral college entirely or packing the court to undo what was done legally.
If you can't win under the rules, ignore or change the rules. That's the approach.
II) But second, look at the fantasy justifying this proposal: It's supposedly because these representatives were trying to help Trump be a dictator.
When is someone with a D after their name in Washington - or anyone in the media - going to call these people out for this facially illogical fantasy? I have been hearing for years that Trump is - or is trying to be - a dictator. It's not rational on its face.
What dictator goes to court to hold power? What dictator holds elections where he might lose? He was already president. Does a dictator hold on to power (even if he gained it through an election) by having more elections? In 2018, Trump's party lost seats in Congress. Would a dictator tolerate that? In 2020, he lost the election. Would a dictator file 50 appeals in court?
No, a dictator doesn't sweat the election or the courts because his military surrounds the palace and keeps him in power.
(And by the way, if he - or any other president - were to try that shit, I say "go get the mother fucker and drag him out by his nuts." But until that happens, STFU about it.)
Trump - not all that different from past presidents - clearly wishes he had more authority to do the things he wants to do. He obviously wishes he didn't have to deal with the constraints of the courts, or of Congress, or of term limits. We have heard these frustrations from all presidents, but that doesn't make them dictators in fact any more than a regular person is when they fantasize "if I were in charge . . . "
We live in Gaslighting Opposite World: Following the Constitution is Dictatorship. Free Speech is Hate Speech. Legal appeals are Illegal. Wanting secure, honest elections is anti-democracy.