Two House Republicans tell CNN they expect at least 140 House Republicans to vote against counting electoral votes - CNNPolitics

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  gsquared  •  4 weeks ago  •  89 comments

By:   Jake Tapper (CNN)

Two House Republicans tell CNN they expect at least 140 House Republicans to vote against counting electoral votes - CNNPolitics
Two Republican members of the House of Representatives tell CNN that they expect at least 140 of their GOP colleagues in the House to vote against counting the electoral votes on January 6 when Congress is expected to certify President-elect Joe Biden's victory.

The Republican Party is turning it's back on America.  Republicans can no longer claim to represent democracy or the will of the people.  


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



(CNN)Two Republican members of the House of Representatives tell CNN that they expect at least 140 of their GOP colleagues in the House to vote against counting the electoral votes on January 6 when Congress is expected to certify President-elect Joe Biden's victory.

President Donald Trump's Republican allies have virtually zero chance of changing the result, only to delay by a few hours the inevitable affirmation of Biden as the Electoral College winner and the next president.

There have been no credible allegations of any issues with voting that would have impacted the election, as affirmed by dozens of judges, governors, election officials, the Electoral College, the Justice Department, the Department of Homeland Security, and the US Supreme Court. But Trump is determined to claim he didn't lose -- which he did, significantly -- and many GOP politicians either share his delusion or fear provoking his wrath -- even if that means voting to undermine democracy

Both a House member and senator are required to mount an objection when Congress counts the votes. Republican Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri said Wednesday he will object, which will force lawmakers in both the House and Senate to vote on whether to accept the results of Biden's victory. Other senators -- including incoming ones -- could still join that effort, which Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has privately urged Republicans not to do.

Trump has been pushing for Congress to try to overturn the election result as his campaign's attempts to overturn the election through the courts have been repeatedly rejected. 

Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse spoke out against that strategy -- and the complicity of some of his GOP colleagues -- in a Facebook post Wednesday night, urging Republicans to "reject" the effort to object to the certification process. "The president and his allies are playing with fire," he wrote. "They have been asking -- first the courts, then state legislatures, now the Congress -- to overturn the results of a presidential election. They have unsuccessfully called on judges and are now calling on federal officeholders to invalidate millions and millions of votes. If you make big claims, you had better have the evidence. But the president doesn't and neither do the institutional arsonist members of Congress who will object to the Electoral College vote."

Among the more than one dozen Republican House members who have already publicly said they'll vote against counting the electoral votes next week are Reps. Mo Brooks of Alabama, who's spearheading the effort, Jody Hice of Georgia, Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey and Joe Wilson of South Carolina.

Included in that group are eight Republican lawmakers from Pennsylvania, who announced their intentions in a joint statement earlier Thursday.

Several incoming Republican House members have also said they will object to the certification process, including Reps.-elect Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, Madison Cawthorn of North Carolina, Lauren Boebert of Colorado and Diana Harshbarger of Tennessee.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Gsquared
Freshman Principal
1  seeder  Gsquared    4 weeks ago

The distorted beliefs of the Trumpists are antithetical to American values and to the American way of life as a free and democratic nation.  The Republican Party is rendering itself irrelevant to the future of America. 

 
 
 
devangelical
Masters Expert
1.1  devangelical  replied to  Gsquared @1    4 weeks ago

we'll see how many trump cultists actually put their asses on the line.

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
1.2  pat wilson  replied to  Gsquared @1    4 weeks ago

This is all about gaining trump's favor. He's not going anywhere and he has the power to denigrate anyone he chooses. These assholes are cowards, plain and simple. I have mad respect for the republicans that have the balls to shun trump's nonsense.

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
1.2.1  pat wilson  replied to  pat wilson @1.2    4 weeks ago
He's not going anywhere

What I mean is that he will be running his mouth from somewhere, not the WH thank God !!!

 
 
 
MAGA
Junior Guide
1.3  MAGA  replied to  Gsquared @1    4 weeks ago

We are going to debate election integrity and rules fairness and the lack of following the rule of law on the floor of both houses on the 6th of January.  We will have a big pro Trump rally in DC at the same time.  

 
 
 
Gsquared
Freshman Principal
1.3.1  seeder  Gsquared  replied to  MAGA @1.3    4 weeks ago
We are going to debate... the lack of following the rule of law

You're wrong.  Trump's failings will not be the subject of a debate.

big pro Trump rally

With the usual Confederate and Nazi flags.  Trump cultists will feel right at home.

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
1.3.2  Dulay  replied to  MAGA @1.3    4 weeks ago
We are going to debate election integrity and rules fairness and the lack of following the rule of law on the floor of both houses on the 6th of January.  

There you go again with that 'we' bullshit Xx. Unless you are a member of Congress, YOU aren't going to be debating shit. Luckily, there are plenty of other delusional incompetents there to represent you...

We will have a big pro Trump rally in DC at the same time.  

How may Churches are they going to vandalize this time Xx? 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Masters Principal
1.3.3  Bob Nelson  replied to  Gsquared @1.3.1    4 weeks ago
With the usual Confederate and Nazi flags. Trump cultists will feel right at home.

jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Senior Principal
1.3.4  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  MAGA @1.3    4 weeks ago

Have you figured out how to sneak your assault rifles into DC yet?  I can’t wait to see how that turns out.  Such Patriots ... not.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
Junior Expert
1.3.5  FLYNAVY1  replied to  MAGA @1.3    4 weeks ago

So in other words, there is going to be a big white supremacy rally in DC on 6JAN.....

 
 
 
MrFrost
Masters Principal
1.3.6  MrFrost  replied to  MAGA @1.3    4 weeks ago
We are going to debate election integrity and rules fairness

Life isn't fair and there were integrity issues, there was no fraud, there was no cheating. So what's left? "I wanted trump to win!!!!!!!!! WhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaWhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!" That's all these seditious republican pieces of shit are doing and it will literally change nothing. 50 AG's, 50 governors, 60 LOST court cases and the SCOTUS refused to even listen to the lame ass arguments. 

It's OVER, and when the new AG takes over? I hope they prosecute these traitors to the fullest extent of the law. Fuck'em if they are that stupid. 

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Principal
1.3.7  Krishna  replied to  MAGA @1.3    3 weeks ago
We are going to debate election integrity and rules fairness and the lack of following the rule of law on the floor of both houses on the 6th of January.  We will have a big pro Trump rally in DC at the same time.

So you may have 140 House members voting against the vote counting (assuming that number is not an exaggeration, and the actual number won't be far less).

But even if there are all 140 of those acting together to oppose the count (which I doubt)-- that means that there will be almost 300 who won't oppose it.

(So after those opposing get a chance to voice their objections, the count will go on as expected....the most the dissenters can accomplish would be to delay the counting for a short time)

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
1.3.8  Kavika   replied to  Krishna @1.3.7    3 weeks ago
.the most the dissenters can accomplish would be to delay the counting for a short time)

Well they did accomplish to look and act like complete idiots. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
2  Split Personality    4 weeks ago

I used to be amazed at the recalcitrance of Sunni's refusal to deal with Shiites unless there was a natural disaster...

The GOP will soon be the American Sunni Party...

 
 
 
Gsquared
Freshman Principal
2.1  seeder  Gsquared  replied to  Split Personality @2    4 weeks ago

As we have seen in recent years, the Republicans object to providing relief for natural disasters that occur in "blue" states, but demand relief for natural disasters that occur in "red" states.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Senior Quiet
2.2  Ronin2  replied to  Split Personality @2    4 weeks ago

Like the Shiites (which are the Democrats in your example) are one damn bit better. 

So the Democrats are the Shiite party- which means we are all fucked.

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
2.2.1  Split Personality  replied to  Ronin2 @2.2    4 weeks ago

Sunni's are Koran literalists

Shiites believe that the Koran should be interpreted as a living document.  Sound familiar?

So the Democrats are the Shiite party- which means we are all fucked.

Like you need an excuse to remain negative, lol

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
Junior Expert
2.2.2  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Ronin2 @2.2    4 weeks ago

Just so we're all clear here.... The US Constitution won on 4NOV20.......  and will be upheld on 20JAN21.

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Principal
2.3  Krishna  replied to  Split Personality @2    3 weeks ago

Well, since the topic was brought up-- here's the latest in that age-old story. Breaking news (1/3/2021): 

Islamic State claims responsibility for attack on Pakistan's Shi'ite Hazara minority that kills 11

When I first began studying the Middle East (several decades ago) I was trying to figure out which were the "Good Guys" and which were the "Bad Guys". 

Well, first of all, the majority of ordinary folk in each group are not terrorists (although in many places they do sympathize with one group of terrorists or other).

That being said, there are a lot-- and I mean a lot -- of Bad Guys in both groups.

Much of the Holy Koran is written in a way that lends itself to being interpreted as condoning extreme violence against "Non-believers". And unfortunately, Islam clearly states that the Holy Koran is the literal word of God.

So-- its really not useful to attempt tp make a case that any particular American political party is like one of these groups-- and another U.S. party is like the other.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Masters Principal
2.3.1  Bob Nelson  replied to  Krishna @2.3    3 weeks ago

C'mon, Krishna!

You're cheating!

You're using that well-known performance-enhancing drug...   ...    knowledge... 

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
3  Kavika     4 weeks ago

In addition to the 140 congressmen, it's being said that a handful of Republican Senators will join them. If they believe that the election is illegitimate that will make their election illegitimate. I wonder how many of these so-called patriots will resign their illegitimate seat in congress. 

My guess is that not one of the assholes will. So much for their so called principles.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Masters Guide
3.1  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Kavika @3    4 weeks ago

If they believe that the election is illegitimate that will make their election illegitimate.

WTF is wrong with these idiot RepubliCONS?

If they believe that the election is illegitimate that will make their election illegitimate

I hope it becomes a reality.  They need to be removed like the cancer they are.  The minute that possibility hits them, watch how fast they turn, like the rats they are.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Freshman Principal
3.1.1  seeder  Gsquared  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @3.1    4 weeks ago
WTF is wrong with these idiot RepubliCONS?

Just about everything.

 
 
 
MAGA
Junior Guide
3.1.2  MAGA  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @3.1    4 weeks ago

There’s nothing wrong as they are engaging in a process permitted by the constitution and following its guidelines.  Their behavior in making a challenge is constitutionally protected.  

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Masters Principal
3.1.3  Bob Nelson  replied to  MAGA @3.1.2    4 weeks ago

A procedure that has never even been asserted (much less executed) in the history of the republic.

 
 
 
bugsy
Masters Guide
3.1.4  bugsy  replied to  Bob Nelson @3.1.3    4 weeks ago
A procedure that has never even been asserted (much less executed) in the history of the republic

Uh, yes it has....three times...by democrats

2000, 2004 and 2016

Non liberal history can be your friend.

And the one that up voted you.

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
3.1.5  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @3.1.4    4 weeks ago

What was the name of the Senator for those 3 occasions bugsy? 

I know of ONE. 

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
3.1.6  Dulay  replied to  MAGA @3.1.2    4 weeks ago

I REPEAT you really should stop commenting on things you know nothing about. 

There is NOTHING in the Constitution about the Congress challenging State certified electors. NOTHING!

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Masters Principal
3.1.7  Bob Nelson  replied to  bugsy @3.1.4    4 weeks ago

Give us a link, please.

I follow politics fairly closely, but I remember nothing of that.

[Deleted]

 
 
 
bugsy
Masters Guide
3.1.8  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @3.1.5    4 weeks ago
What was the name of the Senator for those 3 occasions bugsy? 

Don't know...don't care. The accusation was that this procedure has never been asserted. I showed proof that it has been...three times...by democrats.

"I know of ONE"

Good for you. [Deleted]

 
 
 
bugsy
Masters Guide
3.1.9  bugsy  replied to  Bob Nelson @3.1.7    4 weeks ago
I follow politics fairly closely, but I remember nothing of that. Far be it from you me to imagine that you're makin' shit up, but....

Here ya go...

Now, come back with the regular liberal...."well, it's Fox, so (fill in the blank stupid excuse".

[ Deleted ]

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
3.1.10  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @3.1.8    4 weeks ago
I showed proof that it has been...three times...by democrats.

You didn't 'show' a fucking thing.

You made a proclamation.

I asked you for the names of the Senators, you refuse to cite them. 

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
3.1.11  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @3.1.9    4 weeks ago

That's ONE. 

Three MORE to go bugsy.

Or did you forget that you cited 4 dates. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Masters Principal
3.1.12  Bob Nelson  replied to  bugsy @3.1.9    4 weeks ago

Your link does indeed indicate that the Dems made challenges in those years, but doesn't specify the nature of the challenges, so we don't know now similar they were or weren't.

It's interesting to note that Pelosi made it clear that the Presidential vote would not be overturned.

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
3.1.13  Texan1211  replied to  bugsy @3.1.9    4 weeks ago

mainstream news barely covered it when a Democrat tried this.

Gee. I wonder why?

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
3.1.14  Texan1211  replied to  Bob Nelson @3.1.12    4 weeks ago

no, it won't be overturned.

Just like when Democrats did it unsuccessfully.

 
 
 
bugsy
Masters Guide
3.1.15  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @3.1.10    3 weeks ago
I asked you for the names of the Senators, you refuse to cite them. 

I don't give a fuck what you asked of me.

The allegation was that the procedure of challenging the electoral college by members of Congress has never been done. I showed that was a false statement.

You fantasy of what you think I should do does not phase me, but simply makes me chuckle at the idiocy.

 
 
 
bugsy
Masters Guide
3.1.16  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @3.1.11    3 weeks ago
Three MORE to go bugsy

Maybe you need need to take the advice you gave MUVA on another thread and read the fucking link.

"The last three times a Republican has been elected president -- Trump in 2016 and George W. Bush in both 2000 and 2004 -- Democrats in the House have brought objections to the electoral votes in states the GOP nominee won. In early 2005 specifically, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., along with Rep. Stephanie Tubbs, D-Ohio, objected to Bush's 2004 electoral votes in Ohio.

[Deleted] it doesn't matter if I cited one or ten thousand. The allegation was that it never happened before. I proved him...and you...wrong.

 
 
 
bugsy
Masters Guide
3.1.17  bugsy  replied to  Bob Nelson @3.1.12    3 weeks ago
Your link does indeed indicate that the Dems made challenges in those years, but doesn't specify the nature of the challenges, so we don't know now similar they were or weren't. It's interesting to note that Pelosi made it clear that the Presidential vote would not be overturned.

Doesn't matter what the specifics are. You called me a liar, I [Deleted] poved you wrong.

It wasn't difficult, nor is it ever.

And who care what Pelosi made clear. Nobody pays attention to her anymore...at least those that matter.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Masters Principal
3.1.18  Bob Nelson  replied to  bugsy @3.1.17    3 weeks ago
You called me a liar

No, I did not. OTOH, the phrase I've just cited is false, so....

---

Doesn't matter what the specifics are. 

Actually, it does. I'm attentive to nuances in reporting, and I'm fairly careful about making assertions. So I never said that the Democrats never challenged a result. What I said was:

A procedure that has never even been asserted (much less executed) in the history of the republic. (Citations are s-o-o-o much more precise 😁.)

So basically... what I said, in both cases, was accurate.

[Deleted]

You lost track of the origin of this thread, and your memory played you a couple tricks.

I think it's the latter. It's a phenomenon I've seen many times. You're sure you know how I think. (That's false, too, but you believe it.) So you're convinced that you know what I would say. Your memory played the trick of slipping from what I did say, to "what you knew I must have said".

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
3.1.19  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @3.1.15    3 weeks ago
You fantasy of what you think I should do does not phase me, but simply makes me chuckle at the idiocy.

[Deleted]

 
 
 
bugsy
Masters Guide
3.1.20  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @3.1.19    3 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
bugsy
Masters Guide
3.1.21  bugsy  replied to  Bob Nelson @3.1.18    3 weeks ago
A procedure that has never even been asserted (much less executed) in the history of the republic.

I honestly don't think you realize what you are saying.

You made the assertion that the procedure of challenging the electoral college has never been done in the history of the republic. This was the response to my

I gave you three times IN THE HISTORY OF THE REPUBLIC in which the EC was challenged in Congress and the procedure was EXECUTED in the form of 2 hours of debate per state being disputed.

You then moved the goal post saying you just don't know the specifics of the challenges.

You called me a liar

"No, I did not. OTOH, the phrase I've just cited is false, so...."

This is your post from 3.1.7

"Far be it from you me to imagine that you're makin' shit up, but...."

"Makin shit up" is the same as calling me a liar.

I proved you wrong.

You lost.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Masters Principal
3.1.22  Bob Nelson  replied to  bugsy @3.1.17    3 weeks ago
Nobody pays attention to her anymore...at least those that matter.

That's silly.

Pelosi is the longest-serving Speaker since Sam Rayburn. She has negotiated backbench revolts at the start of each session. Her Congresses have been prolific, although stymied by McConnell's sabotage over the last eight years.

Obamacare should rightly be called Pelosicare.

"Conservatives hate Pelosi!" I realize that that is an obligatory article of faith in today's conservative dogma.

But... think!

When you falsely denigrate someone... you are insulting your own intelligence.

Pelosi is in reality, for conservatives, a strong opponent. Why force yourself to say stuff about her that, objectively, is false? Why force yourself to... lie?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Masters Principal
3.1.24  Bob Nelson  replied to    3 weeks ago
You can’t be prolific and stymied at the same time pick one.

Actually... it's possible... and it's the case. 

The House passed a lot of legislation... which the Senate killed.

OK, now?

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Senior Participates
3.1.25  Greg Jones  replied to  MAGA @3.1.2    3 weeks ago
There’s nothing wrong as they are engaging in a process permitted by the constitution and following its guidelines.  Their behavior in making a challenge is constitutionally protected.  
It's called peaceful protest, Bob

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
3.1.26  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @3.1.16    3 weeks ago
Now, before you try to spin anything with your expertise in self proclaimed site expert on everything, it doesn't matter if I cited one or ten thousand.

Please post a block quote from ME where I EVER proclaimed myself a 'site expert' on ANYTHING  bugsy. 

I relinquish to YOU any claim of expertise in insisting that one has no burden of proof for the content of ones posts. 

The allegation was that it never happened before. I proved him...and you...wrong.

You should read the thread more carefully. The original claim by Xx:

a process permitted by the constitution and following its guidelines

That 'process' that YOU insist HAS been followed multiple times does NOT exist in the Constitution bugsy. I've told Xx that fact multiple times. 

It IS codified by the Electoral Counting Act, which is a STATUTE. 

You insist that the above STATUTARY process was followed 'three times by democrats' but THAT claim requires that I accept that the objection in 2005 that included both a Senator and a Representative AND was voted on in both Houses is the SAME as all of the other objections. I for one refuse to accept your conflation. 

A Representative objecting without having a Senator's concurrence, is just NOISE. 

There have been 2 instances of objections that fulfill the 'process' in the Electoral Counting Act. 

One in 1967, a date YOU failed to cite. 

The second in 2005, which is partially documented in your block quote. 

Those are the ONLY 2 instances when an objection fulfilled the 'process' or 'procedure' set by STATUTE. 

So to be clear, you did NOT prove ANYONE 'wrong' bugsy. 

The 'process' isn't Constitutional. So you bit on a false predicate. 

No Constitutional 'procedure' has been follow or used by ANYONE because there is NO Constitutional 'process' OR 'procedure' for Congress to object to electors. Again, back to the false predicate. 

The STATUTORY 'process' has only been fulfilled twice, in 1967 and 2005. 

The Senators that participated were Muskie and Boxer. 

The reasoning behind those objections is fully documented, as are the above FACTS, though I doubt you give a fuck. 

THOSE are the ONLY 2 instances that can objectively be compared to what the GOP intends to do on Jan. 20, 2021. 

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
3.1.27  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @3.1.20    3 weeks ago

Truncating a members comment to pretend to make a point is cowardly. 

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
3.1.28  Dulay  replied to    3 weeks ago
You can’t be prolific and stymied at the same time pick one.

No need to pick one, those terms are neither counterintuitive or contradictory. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Masters Principal
3.1.29  Bob Nelson  replied to  Dulay @3.1.27    3 weeks ago
Truncating a members comment 

[Deleted]

 
 
 
bugsy
Masters Guide
3.1.30  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @3.1.26    3 weeks ago

I'm done arguing things never insinuated. You are good at trying to get someone dwn a rabbit hole, then claim victory.

If Bob thought MUVA's comment was wrong because of the Constitutional aspect, then Bob should have stated so. He did not. He just said the assertions were never made.

I proved to him...and you..that he is wrong....with links.

If you want the last word, go ahead and get it. If it makes you feel better.

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
3.1.31  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @3.1.30    3 weeks ago
I'm done arguing things never insinuated. 

Not 'insinuated' bugsy. You stated, as a matter of fact, that I am a 'self proclaimed site expert on everything' and I asked you to support your claim.

We both know you cannot, so the adult thing to do, at minimum, is to retract your statement. 

But hey, if it makes you feel better to slink away, you go right ahead. 

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
3.1.32  Dulay  replied to  Bob Nelson @3.1.29    3 weeks ago

If either engendering animosity or failing to contribute were CoC violations, it would eliminate the vast majority of some member's participation. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Masters Principal
3.1.34  Bob Nelson  replied to  Dulay @3.1.32    3 weeks ago
If either engendering animosity or failing to contribute were CoC violations, it would eliminate the vast majority of some member's participation. 

That's probably true. I try not to imagine that anyone sees having that kind of participation as desirable... but it is certain that NT would have a lot less clicks.

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
3.1.35  Dulay  replied to    3 weeks ago
Or argumentum ad nauseam ring a bell?  

Why yes MUVA, YES it does.

There are members that are infamous for repeating the same lies over and over every day no matter how many times they have been refuted as untrue, it's impossible to miss. 

 
 
 
bugsy
Masters Guide
3.1.36  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @3.1.31    3 weeks ago
is to retract your statement. 

Sorry, but Ia don't "slink" away from anything...or anybody.

I will concede the "self proclaimed" aspect of my statement, but maybe the obnoxious, self importance attitude needs to be evaluated.

"so the adult thing to do"

I did my part, now maybe you can do yours.

 
 
 
bugsy
Masters Guide
3.1.37  bugsy  replied to  bugsy @3.1.36    3 weeks ago

Well, so much for the "adult" part.

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
3.1.38  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @3.1.36    3 weeks ago
I will concede the "self proclaimed" aspect of my statement,

Concede it as WHAT bugsy? 

but maybe the obnoxious, self importance attitude needs to be evaluated.

Evaluate away, just know that your conclusion is unimportant to me. 

I did my part, now maybe you can do yours.

I have been, all along. 

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
3.1.39  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @3.1.37    3 weeks ago

Are you two having a disagreement?

 
 
 
Gsquared
Freshman Principal
3.2  seeder  Gsquared  replied to  Kavika @3    4 weeks ago

The only principle that drives the majority of Republicans now is fealty to the Dear Leader.

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
3.2.1  Texan1211  replied to  Gsquared @3.2    4 weeks ago

exactly who is your Dear Leader?

 
 
 
Gsquared
Freshman Principal
3.2.2  seeder  Gsquared  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.1    3 weeks ago

I don't have a Dear Leader.  The Republican Party does and his name is Donald J. Trump.  But you know that already.

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
3.2.3  Texan1211  replied to  Gsquared @3.2.2    3 weeks ago

That is extremely amusing!

Got any other fantasies?

 
 
 
Gsquared
Freshman Principal
3.2.4  seeder  Gsquared  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.3    3 weeks ago

Amusing for you.  Horrendous for our country.

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
3.2.5  Texan1211  replied to  Gsquared @3.2.4    3 weeks ago

Amusing because it is utterly ridiculous.

Dear Leader!!!!

LOL!

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Principal
3.3  Krishna  replied to  Kavika @3    3 weeks ago
My guess is that not one of the assholes will. So much for their so called principles.

And in many cases, "so much for their so-called..."intelligence"!

 
 
 
Dragon
Freshman Silent
4  Dragon    4 weeks ago

Trump's cult is dangerous, and it is a cult, no doubt about it. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Masters Principal
5  Bob Nelson    4 weeks ago

The Republican Party has been opposed to democracy for decades. Our feckless media is still stuck in the same rut where it's been stuck since Reagan:

  • must never appear to take sides...
  • so we must downplay Republican neo-fascism while finding even the tiniest Democratic errors... 
  • both sides do it!

Even now, with the Republicans openly opposing democratic process, the media refuse to use the word "fascist".

 
 
 
MAGA
Junior Guide
5.1  MAGA  replied to  Bob Nelson @5    4 weeks ago

Actually they are engaging in constitutional process.  Denying them their constitutional rights to make their challenges to election issues would be the real fascism here.  

 
 
 
Gsquared
Freshman Principal
5.1.1  seeder  Gsquared  replied to  MAGA @5.1    4 weeks ago

Their challenges with no facts, no evidence.  Their challenges with no basis in reality.  Their challenges for the purpose of overturning a fair and free democratic election.  Their challenges for the purpose of satisfying the whims of an autocrat. 

Their challenges will be seen by the entire world for the complete and total fraud that they are.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Masters Principal
5.1.2  Bob Nelson  replied to  Gsquared @5.1.1    4 weeks ago

They've given up trying to prove they won legitimately. Now they're trying to win despite having no legitimacy at all.

They're trying a straightforward power grab. America is now officially a banana republic.

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
5.1.3  Dulay  replied to  MAGA @5.1    4 weeks ago
Actually they are engaging in constitutional process.  Denying them their constitutional rights to make their challenges to election issues would be the real fascism here.  

Really Xx, you really should stop commenting on things you know nothing about. 

There is NOTHING in the Constitution about the Congress challenging State certified electors. NOTHING!

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
5.1.4  Dulay  replied to  Gsquared @5.1.1    4 weeks ago

I wonder if McConnell will censor the coverage? I think he has the power to shut off C-Span cameras. IMHO, that will be the only way to minimize the effect of this debacle on the GOP. 

 
 
 
bugsy
Masters Guide
5.1.5  bugsy  replied to  Gsquared @5.1.1    4 weeks ago
Their challenges with no facts, no evidence. 

What was the facts and evidence in 2000, 2004 and 2016 that democrats used to challenge the EC?

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
5.1.6  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @5.1.5    4 weeks ago

Since you cited the instances, why don't YOU tell us bugsy? 

 
 
 
bugsy
Masters Guide
5.1.7  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @5.1.6    4 weeks ago

Don't know...don't care. I answered the post that was made. Just because YOU don't like it, too bad for YOU, Dulay.

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
5.1.8  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @5.1.7    4 weeks ago
Don't know...don't care. I answered the post that was made. Just because YOU don't like it, too bad for YOU, Dulay.

You didn't answer the post bugsy, you ASKED a question. 

If you don't care, why in the hell did you ask the question? 

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
5.1.10  Dulay  replied to    3 weeks ago

That hilarious coming from you MUVA. 

Of what facts on what subject are you claiming I am unaware? 

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Principal
5.1.11  Krishna  replied to  MAGA @5.1    3 weeks ago
Denying them their constitutional rights to make their challenges to election issues would be the real fascism here.  

No one is denying them their rights to the process. 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
6  Buzz of the Orient    4 weeks ago

It's going to be the Republicans' last chance to do something stupid in order to make their Pied Piper happy.  This coming week is going to be very interesting, eventful, and important.

 
 
 
PJ
Masters Participates
7  PJ    4 weeks ago

Each one of these elected officials who took an oath to uphold our constitution should be unceremoniously removed from office for their attempts at a coup.  They are enemies to the country.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Masters Principal
7.1  Bob Nelson  replied to  PJ @7    4 weeks ago

They are self-declared enemies of the republic. They state publicly that their intention is to overthrow the law.

It's treason.

... but shush... such things must not be said... we must pretend that anti-democratic fascists are honorable participants in our democracy...

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
8  Kavika     4 weeks ago

So these Republicans want to disenfranchise millions of voters. You really have to question their brainpower. If they feel that the elections were invalid that would mean that many of them are in office illegally, so if they are going to stand on principle they should resign their seats immediately. 

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Principal
8.1  Krishna  replied to  Kavika @8    3 weeks ago

Ultimately, this is a "tempest in a Teapot".

They will have a success-- but only one success-- they will be successful in delaying the process-- probably for a few hours.

And that's it.

(Well, they will also make fools of themselves, and slightly tarnish the already tarnished reputation of the Republican Party as the party of fools. But is that really a success? Well, it may possibly help the Dem...but only a little).

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Principal
8.1.1  Krishna  replied to  Krishna @8.1    3 weeks ago

Of course there's also a chance The Proud Boys, The KKK,  The American Nazi party and others of that ilk may heed Trump's implied call for violence. And this may be their last really good chance to create a few significant  acts of Right-wing terrorism. 

But these idiots don't even realize that that will not in any well help their cause in the eyes of the majority of Americans...

(And various U.S. military and police agencies may crack down on them more than realize...)

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online



shona1
Texan1211
GregTx
Dulay
Gordy327
JBB
arkpdx


41 visitors