Audie
Veteran Member
Oh, well as if THAT negates everything I said.
Bet you are a collusionist anyway.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Trump abruptly comes home early
- Thread starter Riders
- Start date
Oh, well as if THAT negates everything I said.
Bet you are a collusionist anyway.
You think that's bad?
I nearly sobered up!
Secret Chief
Vetted Member
So you have no views on local or national government, society, international matters...?
Secret Chief
Vetted Member
One funny frube ain't enough for that.
Secret Chief
Vetted Member
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I tend to ignore rants. It is rarely worthwhile to mine them for a gem or two.
And no, I accepted that collusion was not supported by evidence. Trump has still acted as weakly with Russia as he would have if he did collude. I think that it is more of a case of liking the Russian dictator than actual collusion. Trump is not above hero worship himself.
Dave Watchman
Active Member
Not so fast amigo.
HUGE BREAKING NEWS
Sen.@tedcruz is leading a delegation of Republican senators who are planning to challenge the Electoral College certification and demand an emergency audit.
Cruz to lead group of GOP senators in challenge to Electoral College certification
by Zachary Halaschak, Breaking News Reporter |
| January 02, 2021
by Zachary Halaschak, Breaking News Reporter |
| January 02, 2021
Sen. Ted Cruz is leading a delegation of Republican senators who are planning to challenge the Electoral College certification and demand an emergency audit.
Cruz is joined by several other GOP lawmakers who said in a statement that "voter fraud has posed a persistent challenge in our elections, although its breadth and scope are disputed."
Cruz to lead group of GOP senators in challenge to Electoral College certification
Cruz is joined by several other GOP lawmakers who said in a statement that "voter fraud has posed a persistent challenge in our elections, although its breadth and scope are disputed."
"By any measure, the allegations of fraud and irregularities in the 2020 election exceed any in our lifetimes," they added.
The senators joining the Texas Republican in objecting are Ron Johnson of Missouri, James Lankford of Oklahoma, Steve Daines of Montana, John Kennedy of Louisiana, Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, and Mike Braun of Indiana. Senators-elect Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, Roger Marshall of Kansas, Bill Hagerty of Tennessee, and Tommy Tuberville of Alabama also signed onto the statement.
“Accordingly, we intend to vote on January 6 to reject the electors from disputed states as not ‘regularly given’ and ‘lawfully certified’ (the statutory requisite), unless and until that emergency 10-day audit is completed,” the Saturday afternoon statement read.
https://twitter.com/ArchKennedy/status/1345432052116705282
Cruz to lead group of GOP senators in challenge to Electoral College certification
Lights that shine, burning RED.
Dreams of you all through my head.
Attachments
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
The last time I check 11 Senators was not a majority.Not so fast amigo.
HUGE BREAKING NEWS
Sen.@tedcruz is leading a delegation of Republican senators who are planning to challenge the Electoral College certification and demand an emergency audit.
Cruz to lead group of GOP senators in challenge to Electoral College certification
by Zachary Halaschak, Breaking News Reporter |
| January 02, 2021
Sen. Ted Cruz is leading a delegation of Republican senators who are planning to challenge the Electoral College certification and demand an emergency audit.
Cruz is joined by several other GOP lawmakers who said in a statement that "voter fraud has posed a persistent challenge in our elections, although its breadth and scope are disputed."
"By any measure, the allegations of fraud and irregularities in the 2020 election exceed any in our lifetimes," they added.The senators joining the Texas Republican in objecting are Ron Johnson of Missouri, James Lankford of Oklahoma, Steve Daines of Montana, John Kennedy of Louisiana, Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, and Mike Braun of Indiana. Senators-elect Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, Roger Marshall of Kansas, Bill Hagerty of Tennessee, and Tommy Tuberville of Alabama also signed onto the statement.
“Accordingly, we intend to vote on January 6 to reject the electors from disputed states as not ‘regularly given’ and ‘lawfully certified’ (the statutory requisite), unless and until that emergency 10-day audit is completed,” the Saturday afternoon statement read.https://twitter.com/ArchKennedy/status/1345432052116705282
Cruz to lead group of GOP senators in challenge to Electoral College certification
Lights that shine, burning RED.
Dreams of you all through my head.
You are quite full of fail today.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
By the way, that news is neither breaking nor huge. It is several hours old. And it is simply another "So what?" Who is surprised that there are more immoral Republicans. They are probably pandering to their brainless base. At the most they can only force a vote on whether electoral votes are to be rejected, and that needs a majority vote of both houses of Congress to accomplish.
Here is what would happen:
Arizona would be the first "contested" state, and it is not contested since the governor certified the election. But they still might start a debate. The Immoral Republicans would claim that there is evidence of fraud. When asked for it the best that they could do is to say "Well we don't have it right now, but just you wait!" It would then go to a vote and to reject the votes they would need a majority of both Houses of Congress and that ain't gonna happen.
The same would happen with all of the other 'contested states'. It will only make the Republicans look even worse than they already do.
Here is what would happen:
Arizona would be the first "contested" state, and it is not contested since the governor certified the election. But they still might start a debate. The Immoral Republicans would claim that there is evidence of fraud. When asked for it the best that they could do is to say "Well we don't have it right now, but just you wait!" It would then go to a vote and to reject the votes they would need a majority of both Houses of Congress and that ain't gonna happen.
The same would happen with all of the other 'contested states'. It will only make the Republicans look even worse than they already do.
Dave Watchman
Active Member
That article is from just today, Saturday.
The ball is just getting rolling.
The twitter feed is flowing fast.
What do you think they are doing in the Biden camp right now?
Sitting back eatin' pizza and chicken wings?
All this context, is, in addition, extra ancillary ammunition to embolden what Trump's planning to do.
In other words, in this environment, with all this going on, do you think Trump will turn around and concede now?
No way.
Those video guys are right.
This will wind up with each State having one vote in January.
Unless a Republican majority turn on Trump.
I'll say again, something big will happen in January.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Yes, it happened today. But it is hardly "breaking news"That article is from just today, Saturday.
The ball is just getting rolling.
The twitter feed is flowing fast.
What do you think they are doing in the Biden camp right now?
Sitting back eatin' pizza and chicken wings?
All this context, is, in addition, extra ancillary ammunition to embolden what Trump's planning to do.
In other words, in this environment, with all this going on, do you think Trump will turn around and concede now?
No way.
Those video guys are right.
This will wind up with each State having one vote in January.
Unless a Republican majority turn on Trump.
I'll say again, something big will happen in January.
Once again this is a big "So what?" To reject the electoral votes, which is what you need, a majority of both Houses would need to agree. Even with the new members the House is still Democratic. You do not get to your ultimate goal until that happens.
And do you seriously think that all Republican Senators are immoral? I do not have that low of an opinion of the Republican party.
Dave Watchman
Active Member
I certainly do.
I'm not a political junkie.
I'm no Wolf Blitzer.
Trump makes me laugh, like a New York comedian.
It would have been good to see him as President, with a Vice President like Joan Rivers.
I like the way Trump yells at the fake news media at the press conferences.
He says what's on his mind.
He's not afraid to coin a term like the "China Virus.
I'm in this for something different.
Secret Chief
Vetted Member
So why do you describe yourself as "not political" ?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
A little more clarity here so that some can hopefully learn. When the electoral votes are brought in objections can be raised. Probably starting with Arizona. Let's say Cruz objected. That would start a debate:
"The structure of the Electoral Count Act's procedural provisions generally requires that any questions arising during the counting process be determined by the two houses acting separately, rather than by both houses together on the House floor. Section 5 (now 3 U.S.C. § 18) states that "the President of the Senate shall have power to preserve order; and no debate shall be allowed and no question shall be put by the presiding officer except to either House on a motion to withdraw." Section 6 (now 3 U.S.C. § 17) states that whenever the two Houses have separated "to decide upon an objection ... or other question arising in the matter," each Senator and Representative may "speak to such objection or question" for five minutes, and not more than once.[43] After the debate has lasted two hours, the presiding officer of each House must "put the main question without further debate."[43] Once the two houses have both voted, "they shall immediately again meet, and the presiding officer shall then announce the decision of the questions submitted."[36]
Section 7 (now 3 U.S.C. § 16) states that the joint session cannot be dissolved "until the count of electoral votes shall be completed and the result declared."[41] No recess can be taken "unless a question shall have arisen in regard to counting any such votes, or otherwise under [Title 3, Chapter 1]," in which case either House, acting separately, can recess itself until 10:00 am the next day (Sunday excepted).[41] But if the counting of the electoral votes and the declaration of the result have not been completed before the fifth calendar day after the joint session began, "no further or other recess shall be taken by either House."[41]"
Both full Houses would debate and vote on the matters independently.
And as I said, both Houses have to agree, by majority vote, to reject a state's certified electoral college vote:
"However, when considering such objections, Section 4 requires that – assuming "but one return [from the state] has been received" – no electoral votes from electors whose appointment has been "lawfully certified" under the ascertainment process (see above) can be rejected. The two houses may only reject a vote or votes if both houses agree that such vote(s) have not been "regularly given" by an individual elector or electors.[36] Under the law, Congress may still reject a state's electors if both houses decide to do so, but only when they determine either that the appointment of electors was not "lawfully certified" by the governor under the ascertainment process, or that the votes themselves were not "regularly given" by the electors.[10]:616"
Electoral Count Act - Wikipedia.
If that happens with enough votes to bring the count down below 270 then it would go to one vote per state. It will never get to that point. The House is Democratic and they would not support an illegal coup attempt by Trump.
"The structure of the Electoral Count Act's procedural provisions generally requires that any questions arising during the counting process be determined by the two houses acting separately, rather than by both houses together on the House floor. Section 5 (now 3 U.S.C. § 18) states that "the President of the Senate shall have power to preserve order; and no debate shall be allowed and no question shall be put by the presiding officer except to either House on a motion to withdraw." Section 6 (now 3 U.S.C. § 17) states that whenever the two Houses have separated "to decide upon an objection ... or other question arising in the matter," each Senator and Representative may "speak to such objection or question" for five minutes, and not more than once.[43] After the debate has lasted two hours, the presiding officer of each House must "put the main question without further debate."[43] Once the two houses have both voted, "they shall immediately again meet, and the presiding officer shall then announce the decision of the questions submitted."[36]
Section 7 (now 3 U.S.C. § 16) states that the joint session cannot be dissolved "until the count of electoral votes shall be completed and the result declared."[41] No recess can be taken "unless a question shall have arisen in regard to counting any such votes, or otherwise under [Title 3, Chapter 1]," in which case either House, acting separately, can recess itself until 10:00 am the next day (Sunday excepted).[41] But if the counting of the electoral votes and the declaration of the result have not been completed before the fifth calendar day after the joint session began, "no further or other recess shall be taken by either House."[41]"
Both full Houses would debate and vote on the matters independently.
And as I said, both Houses have to agree, by majority vote, to reject a state's certified electoral college vote:
"However, when considering such objections, Section 4 requires that – assuming "but one return [from the state] has been received" – no electoral votes from electors whose appointment has been "lawfully certified" under the ascertainment process (see above) can be rejected. The two houses may only reject a vote or votes if both houses agree that such vote(s) have not been "regularly given" by an individual elector or electors.[36] Under the law, Congress may still reject a state's electors if both houses decide to do so, but only when they determine either that the appointment of electors was not "lawfully certified" by the governor under the ascertainment process, or that the votes themselves were not "regularly given" by the electors.[10]:616"
Electoral Count Act - Wikipedia.
If that happens with enough votes to bring the count down below 270 then it would go to one vote per state. It will never get to that point. The House is Democratic and they would not support an illegal coup attempt by Trump.
ecco
Veteran Member
America had a choice, sleepy Joe with occasional verbal slips or Orange Donald who is a proven narcissistic pathological liar.
America choose. Suck a lemon.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Nooo, he meant the OTHER groups of people who showed up to a rally arranged by neo-Nazis, marched alongside neo-Nazis, chanted and cheered neo-Nazi speeches, and specifically came to protest the local council considering taking down a monument of a man who fought and died to for the right to oppress and commodify black people that was only erected in the first place to scare local black communities after the civil rights movement.
Were those the "very fine people" he meant? Or were they a-okay because they weren't waving swastikas?
Nope. Jusy lots of OTHER illegal activity related to corruption, embezzlement and finance irregularities.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Weird how you have to literally ignore everything that Trump has done in order to defend him.And not only that, he called it the "China virus".
Not the "mainland China virus".
He's bad bad bad bad bad, he's nationwide.
What's "TDS" again?
ecco
Veteran Member
While inside the massive new evidence is proving the dumb Dems rigged the election and Congress overrides the Nov votes and appoints Trump President for life.
While outside one million Americans will wildly cheer.
Uh huh. Is this where I say LMAO, again?
ecco
Veteran Member
What is this new evidence? Do you know? Or is this just another sad Trump ploy to get more money?
Read carefully. It says "if the vote goes to the floor" the new evidence will be presented. They don't have any new evidence and they know they will not be called on to present any because they know it will not come to a vote on the floor.
Afterward, they can cry, like they have been, that no one wants to look at the mountains of new evidence.
Some people never get tired of being led by the nose.
Audie
Veteran Member
Sarcsm does not change the fact that the
"Fine people" quote is deliberately misrepresented.
At least you agree the Russian collusion thing was fake.
Now, who concocted it. why, and what did it cost on dollars and otherwise?