Domestic enemies
- Thread starter TarHeelEer
- Start date
Yeah... but it's up to the Republicans to be "Civil".
She's such a worthless hag. 2022 can't come soon enough.
And your solution is for one person who is part of the election "in question" to decide the "true" outcome of that election.
Dems are completely in charge now. So, by definition it would be the Reps starting any kind of civil war. Never ceases to amaze me how weak the Reps are, but they like to sound so strong.
Watching them outside the Capitol now.
You must be sooo proud of your fellow anarchists.
So when Democrats objected years ago, like Republicans have today, they were domestic enemies as well?
Or are you flying those hypocritical colors again today.
I said a month ago, I'm an observer. But I also warned you then what was coming.
Do you understand the concept of context or are you really that simple minded as you sound?
Years ago, the process was objected to due to alleged voter suppression. Today it is due to alleged voter fraud. Years ago, the act was not an attempt to reverse the election and dismiss votes. Today, it is.
JFC, you are moronic.
I wouldn't say nobody. The President is.
And I am totally against Congress getting involved with elections. I would think that would horrify "conservatives" and "libertarians". Sounds like something directly out of a Schumer dream, imo.
You decentralize government by having the federal government overturn some cherry-picked state election results. That's in the Constitution, I'm sure of it.
Is that the Oopsie clause of the Constitution? The President said his Veep had the sole power to overturn the electors and send it back to the states. Again, not no one.
What are the demands then? They've tried the courts, but have not made a winning case by showing evidence of their claims. I think the exception was the distance between poll monitors and vote counters.
Why are you asking me? This is all being done out in the open publically.
The problem in America today is everyone wants someone else to give them information instead of seeking information.
Look up the 1876 election. That is what Cruz is calling for to resolve a similar situation.
Which part of Article 2? I'd love to see the quote. Article 2, Section 1 lays out thd process. I don't recall any language that says the President of the Senate can send the certified results back to the states for additional review.
:joy: :joy: :joy:
The fact that you believe the **** you spew is what makes it so damn funny.
If only all of our founding documents were somewhere so everyone could read them for themselves.
I read it to make sure. No where in Article 2 was there a reference to the President of the Senate returning certified vote counts back to the states for review. You are the one claiming it says it, so you should be able to quote it.
I did a search on article posted by Dave. Today you used the word. No other instances back to 2018 that were not referencing a news article. Care to back your claim, because I'm calling bs on your claim that it's in the article and your claim that you have posted it before.
Again, I read the entirety of Article 2 before asking you to quote the section. If you are wrong, just admit it. If you are right, you can back your claim.