12 senators to object to Electoral College certification. Crickets from Rand Paul

[RJB]

There's fraud in every election.

There are murders that take place every day.

There are also idiotic posts on RPFs every day.

Somethings are more important than others

 

[vita3]

17% of D’s are admitting this election wasn’t right.

Betcha numbers go up after Wednesdays evidence is presented in DC

 

[Anti Globalist]

17% of D’s are admitting this election wasn’t right.

Betcha numbers go up after Wednesdays evidence is presented in DC

I remember reading somewhere that 30% of Democrats think this election was stolen.

 

[Invisible Man]

There are murders that take place every day.

There are also idiotic posts on RPFs every day.

Somethings are more important than others

OK, so every election senators should object?

Apparently in 2016 there were objections from some Democrat House members, but not any senators. I didn't even know that happened until I learned of it a few days ago. So it apparently wasn't a big deal. Maybe this does happen for a lot of elections, and it usually doesn't matter to anyone. I don't really see the point though.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Rand joining this farce in support of this most socialistic of GOP presidents would be a final and complete betrayal of the liberty movement.

...which, frankly, I was expecting; so I'm pleasantly surprised.

 

[Contumacious]

The problem isn't Rand, it's the RINOs in the Senate, because if the Senate does not reject the Electoral College
results from enough states to push Biden under 270, Biden wins. Every contested state will each get a vote upon certify or not
in the House and Senate on a one-by-one basis.

It is difficult to imagine Romney, Collins, Alexander, Sasse, Thune (who Trump unwittingly inflamed) consenting to invalidating
enough states to make this happen.

After that, it's only the lunatic fringe that claims Pence himself can refuse to validate the states. The 12th Amendment does not give the
VP that ability to decide on his own. His only role is to put it to the House per 12th rules if the House goes one way and the Senate another.

Pence could delay the procedure and ask for a period of further inspection and debate, but again, it reverts ultimately to the GOP acting
as a unit with full strength that is unlikely to happen.

The President of the Senate , VP Pence must exercise his EXCLUSIVE AUTHORITY pursuant to the 12A and reject the EC electors chosen by the treasonous/seditious demo rats.

F u c k the stupid sons of b i t c h e s who claim that being assertive means that one is a "lunatic"

In the former USSR and in Cuba rejecting socialism also meant that one is crazy hence psychiatry is a tool of the state.



.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

The President of the Senate , VP Pence must exercise his EXCLUSIVE AUTHORITY pursuant to the 12A and reject the EC electors chosen by the treasonous/seditious demo rats.

F u c k the stupid sons of b i t c h e s who claim that being assertive means that one is a "lunatic"

In the former USSR and in Cuba rejecting socialism also meant that one is crazy hence psychiatry is a tool of the state.



.

Here's then Vice President Joe Biden confirming Trump's 2016 victory without much ado.



I suppose you all would have had no objections if he'd set those electoral votes aside and declared Hillary the winner?

...because the Founders obviously intended for the VP to choose the next POTUS at his own discretion?

 

[Contumacious]

Here's then Vice President Joe Biden confirming Trump's 2016 victory without much ado.



I suppose you all would have had no objections if he'd set those electoral votes aside and declared Hillary the winner?

...because the Founders obviously intended for the VP to choose the next POTUS at his own discretion?

The 2016 election was not marred by a bold , in-your-face, gargantuan electoral FRAUD.



.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

The 2016 election was not marred by a bold , in-your-face, gargantuan electoral FRAUD.



.

Of course my horse, but it is your position that the VP has the power to decide whether that is in fact the case i.e. whether the election was fair or not, and so to decide which of the electoral votes to recognize - correct? And so VP Biden would have been within his rights to find that the 2016 election was not fair, not recognize certain electoral votes, and declare Hillary the winner - no? If not, who had the power to overrule him? If anyone, then that same person/entity must surely have the power to overrule Pence now...?

 

[vita3]

I remember reading somewhere that 30% of Democrats think this election was stolen.

30% after hearing would be about a post Christmas miracle

 

[oyarde]

The 2016 election was not marred by a bold , in-your-face, gargantuan electoral FRAUD.



.

I suspect that it was , that the dems cheated a lot just more this time . I also dont see how it changes anything once it has been allowed to happen . So I'm expecting nothing of Cruz's or others objections .

 

[RJB]

OK, so every election senators should object?

Apparently in 2016 there were objections from some Democrat House members, but not any senators. I didn't even know that happened until I learned of it a few days ago. So it apparently wasn't a big deal. Maybe this does happen for a lot of elections, and it usually doesn't matter to anyone. I don't really see the point though.

If they have evidence now, 2016, whenever, they should investigate/prosecute. If not, don't. Do you agree or disagree? I don't know what point you are trying to make.

 

[Invisible Man]

If they have evidence now, 2016, whenever, they should investigate/prosecute. If not, don't. Do you agree or disagree? I don't know what point you are trying to make.

No. I don't agree that simply having evidence that somebody committed election fraud is a reason for objections to be raised when the electors are being counted. That's not the job of Congress.

 

[JJ2]

The problem isn't Rand, it's the RINOs in the Senate, because if the Senate does not reject the Electoral College
results from enough states to push Biden under 270, Biden wins. Every contested state will each get a vote upon certify or not
in the House and Senate on a one-by-one basis.

It is difficult to imagine Romney, Collins, Alexander, Sasse, Thune (who Trump unwittingly inflamed) consenting to invalidating
enough states to make this happen.

After that, it's only the lunatic fringe that claims Pence himself can refuse to validate the states. The 12th Amendment does not give the
VP that ability to decide on his own. His only role is to put it to the House per 12th rules if the House goes one way and the Senate another.

Pence could delay the procedure and ask for a period of further inspection and debate, but again, it reverts ultimately to the GOP acting
as a unit with full strength that is unlikely to happen.

Even if the Senate was united, the Electoral Count Act would have to be declared unconstitutional by SCOTUS in order for it to go to the House state delegations for a vote. The ECA says that if the Senate and House disagree with each other, the objections are dismissed.

 

[Contumacious]

Of course my horse, but it is your position that the VP has the power to decide whether that is in fact the case i.e. whether the election was fair or not, and so to decide which of the electoral votes to recognize - correct? And so VP Biden would have been within his rights to find that the 2016 election was not fair, not recognize certain electoral votes, and declare Hillary the winner - no? If not, who had the power to overrule him? If anyone, then that same person/entity must surely have the power to overrule Pence now...?

And since the folks responsible for adjudicating these issues are refusing Americans must accept the fact that we are fast heading towards a very very bloody civil war.



. In Chambers v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, 207 U.S. 142, 28 S. Ct. 34, 52 L. Ed. 143 (1907), the Supreme Court characterized this right of access in the following terms:

The right to sue and defend in the courts is the alternative of force. In an organized society it is the right conservative of all other rights, and lies at the foundation of orderly government. It is one of the highest and most essential privileges of citizenship, and must be allowed by each state to the citizens of all other states to the precise extent that it is allowed to its own citizens. Equality of treatment in this respect is not left to depend upon comity between the states, but is granted and protected by the Federal Constitution.


.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

And since the folks responsible for adjudicating these issues are refusing Americans must accept the fact that we are fast heading towards a very very bloody civil war.



. In Chambers v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, 207 U.S. 142, 28 S. Ct. 34, 52 L. Ed. 143 (1907), the Supreme Court characterized this right of access in the following terms:

The right to sue and defend in the courts is the alternative of force. In an organized society it is the right conservative of all other rights, and lies at the foundation of orderly government. It is one of the highest and most essential privileges of citizenship, and must be allowed by each state to the citizens of all other states to the precise extent that it is allowed to its own citizens. Equality of treatment in this respect is not left to depend upon comity between the states, but is granted and protected by the Federal Constitution.


.

You didn't answer my question.

Here it is more direct-like; did VP Biden have the legal right to make Hillary President on January 6, 2017, or not?

Y/N

 

[Contumacious]

You didn't answer my question.

Here it is more direct-like; did VP Biden have the legal right to make Hillary President on January 6, 2017, or not?

Y/N

Of course the question you REALLY meant to ask was


IN THE ABSCENCE OF ELECTORAL FRAUD did VP Biden have the legal right to make Hillary President on January 6, 2017, or not?

Y/N

NO



.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Of course the question you REALLY meant to ask was


IN THE ABSCENCE OF ELECTORAL FRAUD did VP Biden have the legal right to make Hillary President on January 6, 2017, or not?

Y/N

NO



.

The question I meant to ask was just the one I asked.

Let's try again.

Who decides whether there was electoral fraud?

Is it sufficient for the VP to say that there was fraud, and so appoint whoever he likes to be POTUS?

If not, then how should this process work in your view?

 

[Contumacious]

The question I meant to ask was just the one I asked.

Let's try again.

Who decides whether there was electoral fraud?

Is it sufficient for the VP to say that there was fraud, and so appoint whoever he likes to be POTUS?If not, then how should this process work in your view?

And since the folks responsible for adjudicating these issues are refusing Americans must accept the fact that we are fast heading towards a very very bloody civil war.



. In Chambers v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, 207 U.S. 142, 28 S. Ct. 34, 52 L. Ed. 143 (1907), the Supreme Court characterized this right of access in the following terms:

The right to sue and defend in the courts is the alternative of force. In an organized society it is the right conservative of all other rights, and lies at the foundation of orderly government. It is one of the highest and most essential privileges of citizenship, and must be allowed by each state to the citizens of all other states to the precise extent that it is allowed to its own citizens. Equality of treatment in this respect is not left to depend upon comity between the states, but is granted and protected by the Federal Constitution.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

And since the folks responsible for adjudicating these issues are refusing Americans must accept the fact that we are fast heading towards a very very bloody civil war.

. In Chambers v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, 207 U.S. 142, 28 S. Ct. 34, 52 L. Ed. 143 (1907), the Supreme Court characterized this right of access in the following terms:

The right to sue and defend in the courts is the alternative of force. In an organized society it is the right conservative of all other rights, and lies at the foundation of orderly government. It is one of the highest and most essential privileges of citizenship, and must be allowed by each state to the citizens of all other states to the precise extent that it is allowed to its own citizens. Equality of treatment in this respect is not left to depend upon comity between the states, but is granted and protected by the Federal Constitution.

You are unwilling to answer the question.

I understand...

On another note, what will you be doing when Biden is President?