vote fraud

Only Two House Republicans Genuinely Believe Vote Counts Were Severely Compromised

Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) called his colleagues' bluff yesterday.


Yesterday, the newly elected House of Representatives' held its organizational session to recognize the credentials of those elected, select a Speaker, and adopt rules for the counting presidential electors, among other start-of-session matters.

During the session, Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) filed an objection to seating those members purportedly elected in states in which the Trump Campaign and its allies are challenging the certified vote counts (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin). Rep. Roy, who is on record opposing efforts to challenge validly appointed presidential electors, explained his objection:

I do not make this objection lightly and take no pleasure in it, but believe that I am compelled to do so because a number of my colleagues — whom I hold in high regard — have publicly stated that they plan to object to the acceptance of electors from those particular six states due to their deeply held belief that those states conducted elections plagued by statewide, systemic fraud and abuse that leaves them absolutely no way for this chamber or our constituents to trust the validity of their elections.

Such allegations – if true – raise significant doubts about the elections of at least some of the members of the United States House of Representatives that, if not formally addressed, could cast a dark cloud of suspicion over the validity of this body for the duration of the 117th Congress.  After all, those representatives were elected through the very same systems — with the same ballot procedures, with the same signature validations, with the same broadly applied decisions of executive and judicial branch officials — as were the electors chosen for the President of the United States under the laws of those states, which have become the subject of national controversy. And while the legislatures of those states have sent us no formal indication that the results of these elections should not be honored by this body, it would confound basic human reason if the presidential results were to face objection while the congressional results of the same process escaped without public scrutiny.

While the Constitution and the 12th Amendment do not make Congress the judge of the states' presidential electors, it does require us to be the arbiters of the elections to this body. If the electors for the office of the president were not in question, neither would be the election certificates of my colleagues present here today.

Rep. Roy's objection was rejected 371-2.

NEXT: Can a Fighting Words Charge Lead to a Higher Sentence Because of the Defendant's Racial Motivation?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Yes, those craPrezy Dems were so brilliant that they engaged in massive voter fraud at the Presidential level that fooled Republican election officials and every state and federal court in the land, were too stupid to also fix the House and Senate races.

    But on a serious note, if we conservatives cannot get outraged over the attempt by the Republican party to overturn a properly elected Joe Biden, why don’t those who do not object just quit politics, or form a National Fascist Party and be one with it.

    1. One of the most sane comments I’ve seen on this board. Kudos.

    2. Asserting transparency and the rule of law, opposing cheating, and the stealing of elections by cheaters is now called Fascism by the Democrat.

      1. “opposing cheating, and the stealing of elections by cheaters”

        We need investigators who want to find answers (especially the ones I assume were there in the first place).

        I see who the guy appeals to…

    3. What is wrong with investigating?

      Do we have honest politicians?

      1. We did it in 1876….

        1. There were real problems in 1876 to the point of multiple competing electoral college ballots being sent to Congress from several southern states.

        2. No serious person would cite the 1876 Commission, oh, it’s Dr. Ed 2, no need for the first part then…

          1. Seriously — the 1876 Commission was hardly a model of bipartisanship. Every vote was 8-7 along party lines.

      2. It was investigated, by DOJ and every state where the votes were contested. It went to over 60 courts. None found a problem.

        And no, we do not have honest politicians. The term ‘honest politicians’ is an oxymoron, and the politicians are real morons. But surprisingly we do have honest election officials and civil service employees who administer elections.

        1. Our so-called political “elite” – the office holders, their staffs, and the political media – are intellectually and morally bankrupt. All of them in either party.

          We’d do as well to watch baboons flinging shit at each other as to watch these clowns.

          1. If this is the moment when you wheel out a “plague on both their houses” comment, you really need your eyesight adjusted.

            1. Bullshit. The Republicans are doing now what the Democrats have done at least twice.

              My eyesight is fine. You need to take off your blinders.

              1. The media and the left are invested in the assumption that the GOP and Trump are uniquely bad when we know that Dems and Biden are just as bad.

                Political parties and politicians lie and try to cheat. Always have, always will.

                1. Remind ,e when Dems ever tried to overturn the results of an election.

                  Generally speaking the Democratic Party prefers more democratic engagement. That is more people voting, more diverse backgrounds among the elected, etc. The Republican party prefers less democratic engagement. Their strategy, the only strategy they have left, is suppression of voting.

                  It’s not hard to see who is using motivated reasoning in this scenario, and if you can’t tell, then you are among them.

                  1. “Remind ,e when Dems ever tried to overturn the results of an election.”

                    2000. Lawsuits to have a selective recounting only in Dem areas of Florida.

                    2004. Boxer and 30 reps did just what Howley is doing.

                    1. 1=12
                      30=over 100

                      Next from Bob, 2+2= (the suspense…)

                    2. “1=12
                      30=over 100”

                      So? It takes 51 senators and 218 reps to sustain an objection.

                    3. When measuring the relative seriousness of any efforts toward a goal the number of people engaging in them might be important, even if the number involved in them all is insufficient to achieve the ultimate goal of the efforts, no?

                    4. “When measuring the relative seriousness of any efforts toward a goal the number of people engaging in them might be important, even if the number involved in them all is insufficient to achieve the ultimate goal of the efforts, no?”

                      12 gets no closer to the “ultimate goal” than 1.

                      Oh, we lost 88-12, its a moral victory!

                    5. It gets you 12 times closer.

                    6. Yeah, let’s follow Barbara Boxer’s example. What a role model.

                2. “we know that Dems and Biden are just as bad. ”

                  When Bob moves to the Dems being just as bad as Trump and the Repubs then you know Trump has stepped in it.

                  1. Not on policy but all politicins lie and try to cheat.

                    1. I see, so distinctions, degrees, etc., really are something you don’t care for.

                    2. “all politicins lie and try to cheat.”

                      The one doing the lieing and currently trying to cheat is your guy, Bob.

                  2. The request was “show me when the Dems did this”.

                    Bob showed y’all.

                    And you immediately flipped to defending your side. YOU’RE DEFENDING AND CONDEMNING THE SAME BEHAVIOR IN THE SAME POST.

                    And y’all complain when those of us neutrals out here point out that R and D politicians and their partisans are both without principle.

              2. Plenty of Republicans I won’t condemn on this, plenty of Democrats. A broad brush ‘the elites are all bad’ is kinda facile. Plenty are, but let each one prove it to you first.

                Same kind of nonsense behind leftists’ ‘all cops are bad’ nonsense.

                1. My personal criteria for “good cops”.

                  It is categorically not enough for them to personally refrain from misconduct. Good cops do not tolerate the bad cops. They oppose the bad cops, publicly and in uniform. They treat the bad cops no differently than they treat any other criminal. They will publicly arrest other cops when they see those cops engage in any sort of misconduct.

                  I am willing to admit that it is theoretically possible such cops exist, but I see no evidence of it anywhere.

                  Now, go forth and find me a good cop.

                  1. The president of a relatively large police union told me (before he became active in the union) that if you have 300 police officers, most of them good with 10 bad apples, if that condition persists for more than a few years you have 300 bad police officers.

                  2. Bad cops usually hang good cops out to dry.

                2. I know what you’re saying, and agree that it isn’t every single one. But it’s 95% plus that are unprincipled and not smart.

              3. Your eyesight is terrible if it can’t tell the difference between, say, 12 and 1, or a movement being vocally led by a defeated candidate and one not, etc.,

                1. 1 or 12, its the same hopeless objection. Just a stunt for publicity or fundraising or both.

                  Now, tell me its 51 and 218, maybe I’ll pay attention.

                  1. That’s silly. If the number of, say, avowed socialists in the Congress went from 1 Senator and 30 Reps to 12 Senators and over a hundred (or a majority of one party) you think that wouldn’t be worth paying any attention to? Yeah, I bet you wouldn’t…

                    1. If a candidate won an election 88-12 rather than 99-1, you think that would be worth paying any attention to? Yeah, I bet you would.

                    2. how about if a candidate won an election 304-232?

                    3. “over a hundred (or a majority of one party) ”

                      Love how he keeps eliding this…

                2. Like I pointed out above – you’re actually defending and condemning the same behavior simultaneously.

                  Fucking amazing. Don’t do that shit and then try to claim that you and your side have principles. You’re as detached from reality as Trump.

              4. bevis,

                That’s just not true.

                No Democratic candidate for President has supported this lunacy.

                A single Democratic Senator took the step at least 12 Republican Senators are taking now. But even she made clear her goal was not to overturn the election. Republicans, at minimum they are keeping the “fraud that changed the outcome” lie going. And, that single Democratic Senator was repudiated by…..all the other Democratic Senators. 2005 was no more like 2021 than 1876 was like 2021. What those Republicans (Trump and the 12 moral-dwarves) are doing is not just “what the Democrats have done.” It is different. It is pernicious. It is something no one who cares about the health of our democracy or, frankly, who actually believes in democracy at all, would do. At best, this is a cynical ploy to grab attention, to raise money, and to endear yourself to Trump voters, at the expense of whipping up a whirlwind they cannot control. At worst, it is a brazen attempt to seize power despite the will of the people as expressed at the voting booth.

          2. “Our so-called political “elite” – the office holders, their staffs, and the political media – are intellectually and morally bankrupt. All of them in either party.”

            Disaffected, impotent, whining clingers are among my favorite inconsequential culture war casualties.

            Tired of winning yet, clingers? After a half-century of shaping American progress against the wishes and efforts of conservatives, better Americans are still positioned to continue to impose their preferences on our bigoted, vote-suppressing, superstitious, right-wing losers.

      3. Are you calling Bill Barr a liar and/or a political operative for the Democrats. Because that is what it looks to me you are doing.

        1. Bill Barr is of course a liar. So is the GOP AZ Governor and his Attorney General. So is the GOP governor and Sos and Lt. Governor of Georgia. So are the many GOP (and even Trump appointed) judges and Justices who have turned down challenges. You just don’t know the power of those demon possessed Satanic baby eating Democrats infused with Soros money and the spirit of Hugo Chavez. How can anyone not see something so obvious?

          1. Bill Barr is a toady of the least desirable sort.

    4. This seems to be a big lib talking point these days. It’s stupid. First of all it would be impractical to fix House races; they are simply too widespread. As far as the Senate goes there were only two races in contested states outside of Georgia. In those two the Democrats won by slim majorities. In Georgia the race with Warnock had 17 candidates. No one would have believed that a nobody like Warnock could have gotten a majority. In the other Perdue didn’t get a majority so it’s possible that there were enough votes shifted to deny him one.

      1. In every Congressional district there was a Presidential ballot as well, the latter is just as widespread.

      2. “This seems to be a big lib talking point these days. It’s stupid.”

        Rejecting common sense because it doesn’t give the result you wanted?

        Imagine there’s a huge conspiracy of people read and able to alter the effects of a federal Presidential election. Got that clearly in your mind? OK, now explain why this same conspiracy let Trump be President in 2016, and didn’t bother to do anything to bother Mitch McConnell…

      3. As far as the Senate goes there were only two races in contested states outside of Georgia.


        1. Are you hard of hearing? By contested states I obviously meant the six states we have been talking about for two months.

          1. What you thought was obvious was not in fact obvious.

            And in that case, what? Why would Democrats organize a nationwide conspiracy to commit election fraud and then limit their thefts of senate elections to only six states?

      4. “This seems to be a big lib talking point these days. It’s stupid. First of all it would be impractical to fix House races”

        This is a particularly stupid argument. It’s impractical to fix elections, full stop. The question is whether it’s desirable enough to overcome the difficulties of doing so.
        Donald Trump is currently learning just how hard it is to overturn a U.S. election using the methods he was able to work out. Would it be easier for a smarter person who understood how things work? Quite possibly. But this is not proof that it is happening.
        What IS happening is Trump trying to overturn an election he lost. It’s amusing to watch the desperation develop. I’m expecting a full-on Constitutional crisis to develop by the 19th. Poor Donnie never got his military parade through the capital. Wouldn’t surprise me to see tanks rolling up Pennsylvania Ave.

  2. Technically, the electors clause challenges would only be applicable to the Presidential election, so only claiming the Presidential election was illegally influenced by the election law violations IS a coherent position.

    1. Except that, as the representative explains, any “election law violation” that might be the basis of a hypothetical (and ultra vires) challenge under the electors clause would most definitely be a legally valid predicate for a challenge under art. I(5). That is, unless you’re telling me that the dispute under the electors clause isn’t actually based on any actual allegations of fact.

      1. the dispute under the electors clause isn’t actually based on any actual allegations of fact.”

        It’s based on something Donald Trump said. What’s the historical correlation between things Donald Trump said and actual facts?

    2. Technically, you are wrong.

      People explain this to you repeatedly. There is nothing immoral or bad with being wrong about things. There are real, technical issues that go on that can be difficult to understand sometimes. But to repeatedly insist that you correct about something, when you refuse to understand what is going on, is a form of sickness, Brett.

      But let me try and explain this to you one more time.

      If you want to insist on a certain, somewhat novel reading of the electors clause, that’s fine! Really. The thing is- that reading is the type of thing that has been tested in courts, and rejected at this time. There are a number of reasons of this – one is that this is a fairly novel understanding of it, and another is that even if you were to accept this novel reading, it is also well-settled in the law that you don’t go back and disenfranchise voters based on their reliance of what was the law. Anyway, this is the “technical” understanding that you don’t want to understand. Moreover, even under this “technical” argument, you keep citing (incorrectly) the exact same case over and over from the exact same state and assuming that it applies everywhere- which it doesn’t.

      But here’s where it gets really disturbing. The sleight of hand that frustrates anyone trying to have a conversation with you on this topic is that you deliberately conflate your technical understanding (which is really a misunderstanding of the law) with fraud. In other words, you seem to keep insisting that in various threads that this election was fraudulent (which it was not) because there were votes that you didn’t like- even when it is pointed out that, for example, the votes you insist you don’t like would not have made a difference (such as in Pennsylvania) and were not counted, you just keep saying the same things.

      It’s like whac-a-mole. The same people, posting the same links to the same videos that they don’t understand, insisting the same things (observers kicked out! suitcases!) that they can’t comprehend, over and over. It’s just a version of “but what about jet fuel and steel beams, man? what about it?”

      1. Over and over I distinguish between election law violations and fraud, and it never gets me anywhere. At most, some of the violations might have enabled fraud, but not every election crime is “fraud”.

        1. Here’s the thing- you don’t really distinguish them, Brett.

          Look at how you just stated that- first you said “election law violations” (which, as people repeatedly say to you, is not what you think). Then you go from violations to … crime.

          The vast majority of election law violations are not crimes. The Trump Team’s dropping off of Kanye West’s campaign documents in Wisconsin late was a violation of election law (in that they were late, as adjudicated by the Wisconsin Elections Commission, and later by the courts), but not a crime.

          Casting an absentee ballot in the wrong jurisdiction without meaning to (which is a common Republican voter crime for older people with two houses) is always a violation, but seldom a crime if they only cast a single ballot (because there is usually a mens rea requirement). And so on.

          Your continued insistence that you understand all these issues better than everyone else, despite your language indicating otherwise, does not speak well of you.

          1. Don’t feed the troll. His only agenda is saying things to piss people off.

      2. 200,000 more votes than voters isn’t hard to understand — PA admits that.

        1. So, no offense Dr. Ed, but you have a long history of prevarication. It’s kind of your thing!

          Do you mind providing a primary source for your claim? A source from the last week? It would be awfully weird for a state to certify all their results if the results were off like that!

          Heck, that’s the kind of thing that the Trump Campaign could have provided as evidence in one of their lawsuits when they were asked to provide actual evidence, and didn’t. It does seem weird!

          And if you can’t provide the sourcing, do you mind not continuing to repeat falsehoods? It would be a nice change of pace.

            1. Witness in Pa. election fraud suit from York is a ghost hunter with a long criminal record

              The nut sentence: State elections officials have dismissed that assertion, saying that safeguards built into the system — including identification requirements in the application process for absentee ballots and barcodes on envelopes to prevent ballots from being cast twice — make it impossible for anyone to inject tens or hundreds of thousands of ballots into the system.

              1. All the identifying information on a mail-in ballot is on the outer envelope. The inner envelope contains the ballot and it is separated from the outer envelope and given to different workers to count. There is no identifying information on either the inner envelope or the ballot itself. It is possible to inject ballots into the system but it is also possible, and less likely to be discovered, to swap ballots. Doing so maintains the match between the tally and poll book.

                1. It is also possible that the rest of us don’t exist, and that you are a brain in a vat. And that the projection of Donald Trump did, in fact, win the election, until they changed the nutrients in your brain-vat, causing you to live in a new world where he did not.

                  On the other hand, an unpopular President who has been historically unpopular throughout his Presidency, dealing with a pandemic that he is widely thought to have not done the best he could, lost an election he was the underdog in … after losing the popular vote in the last election. That seems a lot more reasonable.

                  This isn’t “man bites dog” territory.

                  1. And this President claimed widespread election fraud before any votes were cast, during voting, and then when he started losing started claiming it again. It’s almost like maybe he’s a guy with a demonstrated ‘thing’ about ‘losing’ and was setting up an excuse beforehand (only if he needed it of course) and then trotted it out when that happened.

                    What’s remarkable is that so many marks were eagerly lined up to fall for the con.

                    1. He spent a lot of time complaining about the changes that were being introduced, many in haste and without testing or training. Every one of his complaints, mainly about mail-in voting, track with what Jimmy Carter and Jim Baker warned about after studying election fraud all over the world.

                  2. I am referring to the vulnerabilities in the mail-in balloting system, not whether it was used to rig the election or not. In fact I have commented here on at least three occasions that I don’t at this time think it was rigged. If you do want to rig an election, however, mail-in is the way to do it.

                    1. If you want to rig an election, waiting until it is over and you have lost and then hiring incompetent lawyers to sue everybody involved in holding elections is not the way to do it.

                    2. If you do want to rig an election, however, mail-in is the way to do it.

                      Or you could just keep a lot of people from voting, which seems to be the GOP approach.

                      Lots of places, including some states have considerable experience with mail-in voting, and few problems. So it clearly is an acceptable way to conduct an election.

                      I’d argue it’s better, and fairer, than in-person voting where people have to stand in long lines for hours.

                    3. bernard,

                      This business about standing in line for hours is bullshit. Most states have very liberal early in-person voting. Most companies give people time off to vote. People vote in person all over the world and don’t bitch and moan about it like a bunch of pussies.

                    4. Bullshit, donojack.

                      We’ve seen the lines. There are photographs, etc. Here is one article.

                      And remember, this is not just a function of early voting, it;s also a function of how many polling paces, etc., there are. In-person voting is highly susceptible to manipulation of these factors, especially in densely populated areas.

                      So it has its own vulnerabilities.

              2. Sarcastr0, if a woman who was a ghost hunter with a long criminal history said she’d been raped, would you believe her?

                Just wondering…

                1. Is she a lib or a con? He’d need to know that first.

                2. That’s why that’s not all I put in that comment.

                3. If there was evidence of a rape, of course. But not just her word, of course.

            2. pjmedia, lol.

              Just link us straight to the 8chan q-cult board that the author originated their story from, rather than linking the ad-based junk next time.

              And what do you know, this same fella failed to provide any evidence, testimony or otherwise, in the dozen or so PA court challenges. How odd!

              1. But Dr. Ed really wants that to be true, which, if you squint, kind of makes it true. And if it’s kind of true, isn’t it absolutely true?

            3. So, you have repeatedly made the same assertion. About 200,000 votes. The one that Trump tweeted, and is verifiably wrong (it is based on a tragically stupid misunderstanding of how votes are certified and reported in counties). That’s (somewhat) understandable- it’s a little more acceptable than simply mistaking one state for another (Michigan, Minnesota … so similar).

              When asked to provide a primary source for your assertion within the last week, you instead provide a secondary source from over a month ago. And that secondary source is quoting … well, it’s creative.

              At some point, Dr. Ed, either you’re lying to everyone else, or to yourself. But you have no credibility for a reason! Only you can choose to correct that. So, as I wrote, if you can’t back it up, can you at least constrain yourself to opinions instead of spewing falsehoods, because it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

              1. From the beginning Trump has been making election fraud claims that are on the level of a person witnessing a Premier League game where a team loses due to a goal scored at 90+3 and yelling ‘but that’s after the allotted time, cheating, foul, etc,,!’ It’s been more pathetic than tragic, and given that it’s actually *embarrassing* when people still take up his banner on this hill.

                1. It’s helps you identify people whose opinions can be safely ignored.

            4. Your source has to insist that it is NOT the Onion, which doesn’t improve the faith that it routinely has accurate statements of facts. Unless, I guess, they’re saying what you so desperately want to hear.

            5. Dr Ed2: How’s this:

              I have never understood the significance of this person’s claim, nor why people are determined to discredit him. All he said is that he drove about two dozen boxes full of completed postal ballots from one major postal facility to another, and that they disappeared before he could deliver them.

              I can see Democrats raising the alarm about the ballots allegedly disappearing, presumably stolen and destroyed and thus not counted when they should have been.

              But that’s not where the alarm has been. Instead Republicans seem to think these ballots for some reason shouldn’t have been counted but were, and I can’t understand why.

              What is suspicious about them? It seems normal to me that ballots sent through the mail, especially at a time when the USPS is under intense political pressure to give ballots special treatment, would be packed in boxes separately and transported from a sorting facility to another facility near their destination. What else do people expect the post office to have done?

            1. So, just to point this out again.

              Dr. Ed claims that there were 200,000 votes in PENNSYLVANIA. Something which is not true (and he knows this). When called out on it, and asked to provide evidence (a primary source, and one that is recent), he first provides old evidence that isn’t truthful.

              But at least it was from Pennsylvania! Now, in order to support his claim, he is providing the same BS claim that was rubbished a long time ago. But it was in Georgia.

              Dr. Ed, do you honestly have no sense of shame? You realize that you are a known liar, right? But this is getting ridiculousness. To quote one of my favorite SCOTUS oral arguments- have you ever considered just confessing error in this case?

              1. “Dr. Ed, do you honestly have no sense”

                question mark

        2. That didn’t happen Ed. It simply didn’t.

          Your continual claiming that it did doesn’t generate trust in any of your other claims.

      3. ” There is nothing immoral or bad with being wrong about things.”

        Nearly 100% of legal cases has at least one lawyer on the wrong side of it. Nearly 100% of American sporting contests have a team on the losing side of it.
        But still Hamilton Burger and the Washington Generals have Brett Bellmore-level streaks active.

    3. But I think Rep. Roy is making a new argument under Art. 1, Sec. 5, not the presidential electors clause.

      1. Regardless of whether Roy is right or not, I presume he voted for his own motion.

        How about telling us who was THE OTHER VOTER in the article. When you say it fails and only 2 folks voted for the motion, it is simple enough to ADD the ONE name. This is a common problem I see in many articles.

        1. Why would you presume he voted for his own motion? His motion was If one believes that these elections were fraudulent then these representatives’ elections were also illegitimate and they shouldn’t be seated. But he doesn’t believe that, so like the Democrats he voted to seat them.

  3. One of the allegations made by the President’s team is a large number of Biden only ballots in PA and GA, I think.
    Takes a lot mote time to fill out down ballot races for the non-voters who had ballots submitted in their names.

    1. It takes a lot more (some, any) evidence to convince rational people of any of that…

    2. 1. Even if PA and GA were flipped Biden wins.
      2. Too much time? Did they not know the election was coming up or not? That Soros money just couldn’t stretch far enough to cover down ballot work?

      1. I’m sure Trump was also on the phone with Wisconsin legislative leaders, they just didn’t tape & release the call.

    3. I think even Brett has abandoned that one.

    4. There were no “large number of Biden only ballots in PA and GA.”

  4. Well, presumably he voted in favour of his own objection, so that means that only one other representative genuinely believes that the vote counts were severely compromised.

  5. You have to admire his creativity.

    1. Not really. It’s a rather obvious point to make, and one that many others (including myself under prof. Somin’s post yesterday) have made.

      1. His creativity lies in objecting to seating Congressmen from the six states at issue, which the House has more authority to do than challenging votes in the Electoral College.

        1. Yes, I know that’s what you meant.

        2. It’s not really that brilliant, as some of the violations were limited to specific cities, and House seats have districts.

          1. “It’s not really that brilliant, as some of the violations were limited to specific cities, and House seats have districts.”

            Oh, the “people who live in cities” can’t cast votes.

            I have to say, that’s not a great …. euphemism, is it?

            Anyway, the allegations are not so limited. It’s just that, for whatever reason (ahem) … it seems to appeal to elements of Trump’s base to say that the real issue is that the … urban types … are stealing the election.

            Wait a minute. I thought this was only about a technical application of the Electors Clause? 🙂

            1. Oh, the “people who live in cities” can’t cast votes.

              That’s Brett.

              I think he honestly believes that people in cities shouldn’t count as much as those elsewhere. It’s a common theme of his comments on elections. Brett simply seems to dislike city dwellers.

              Anti-urban bigotry has a long and distasteful history, both in Europe and here, and elsewhere for all I know.

              It’s a sort of cultural resentment – “real Americans/Frenchmen/Poles, etc. live in rural areas.” It’s an intolerance of different tastes, attitudes, backgrounds, professions, religions, even languages, and sometimes, skin color. Not all those things for any one person, necessarily, but some subset.

              1. I think he’s more anti “urban” than anti urban.

              2. “I think he honestly believes that people in cities shouldn’t count as much as those elsewhere. It’s a common theme of his comments on elections. Brett simply seems to dislike city dwellers. ”

                they don’t vote for the candidates he prefers, so they brought it on themselves.

          2. “It’s not really that brilliant, as some of the violations were limited to specific cities, and House seats have districts.”

            certified by the state, and if the state is certifying faulty results, then you can’t trust anything they do.

  6. This is so stupid. Who the hell cares about “basic human reason” in this context. There is one reason and one reason only that I support Hawley, Cruz, et al.: F*^&% them. F*^&% the Democrats who objected to the presidential elections in 2004 and 2016 (many of whom went on to be praised and promoted by their colleagues). F*^&% the Democrats who hailed Stacy Abrams (and still do!) in 2018. And F*^&% the bien pensants on both sides who tut-tutted (at worst) the actions of the Democrats, and act like Trump/Hawley/Cruz are the end of democracy and the coming of American Fascism.

    What goes around comes around. That’s all the reason I need.

    God Bless Hawley and Cruz.

    1. I assume you’ve already formed a militia with your local friends, and spent the last two months buying up whatever weaponry and ammunition you could?

      1. I’ve done no such thing. Indeed, this is worthwhile supporting because it has no effect other than as a double middle finger and warning to the Democrats and the bien pensants, all of whom richly deserve it.

        Maybe if they get enough of these banged over their heads, they’ll start to apply the golden rule.

        1. Glad to see you hate half the country. Real patriot you are.

          1. To be clear, I’m not talking about ordinary people who voted for Biden or whoever. Heck, I voted for Biden! I’m talking about the Democrat politicians, the blue checkmarks, etc.

            1. Yes, we’re all definitely going to believe that you voted for Biden. Yes sir, no question.

              1. I can believe he screwed up his ballot so badly he doesn’t know who he voted for. He’s mad at “blue checkmarks”, the poor fellow.

        2. Ah, so it’s like loki said: Performative and tribal. Shouting from your mother’s basement without actually coming off your ass to put your money where your mouth is.

      2. Well, he’s right about one thing: Democratic members of the House objected to certifying the EC vote in 2001, 2005, and 2016. Apparently doing so was OK, on those occasions.

        For instance, Over Some Objections, Congress Certifies Electoral Vote

        Now, I’ll grant that it’s not much of a defense of Hawley that he’s behaving no worse than the Congressional Black Caucus. That’s a pretty low bar to clear, like claiming you’re no stupider than somebody who thinks a naval base will tip over Guam.

        But he cleared it, easily.

        1. Interesting. I didn’t know that. That was wrong.

          1. “That was wrong.”

            Tut-tut. Gotcha.

            Now let’s get back to talking about how Hawley and Cruz are trying to End American Democracy.

            1. So far it looks like they’re much more likely to succeed. (Though fortunately still not very likely.)

              1. “it looks like they’re much more likely to succeed”

                That’s insane. There is zero chance of success.

                1. “zero chance of success”

                  That what is so weird about the hysterical overreaction to Howley et al.

                  It would need a majority of the Democrat controlled House to succeed. So, no more chance of success than the exact same stunt by Boxer in 2004, zero as you said.

                  Its just Trump brain melt I guess. Everything involving Trump is 10 times worse than the exact same thing involving someone else.

                  1. Boxer was the only Democratic senator to take that position. And she did it for an explicitly stated reason, and plainly said she was not trying to overturn the election results.

                    In 2001 there was a protest by the Black Congressional Caucus, which Al Gore ruled out of order.

                    1. Boxer and 30 House members objected. Just like Howley and the rest are going to do.

                      That is the only fact. You are just trying to hand wave it away with the rest of your comments.

                    2. You are just trying to hand wave it away with the rest of your related facts.
                      FTFY. I know you wouldn’t want to be blind to facts that very likely might change context…

                  2. What’s really frightening, though, is that if the GOP controlled both houses of Congress it might well work. We would then have a situation in which Trump lost the popular vote, and the electoral vote, and still got to keep the presidency through a naked power grab by Republicans. And don’t think there wouldn’t be huge pressure brought to bear on Congressional Republicans to fall in line.

                    So even though it’s not going to happen, the fact that under our system it could happen strongly suggests our system needs to be changed.

                  3. Josh David “Howley” (sic) is my Senator, and I hold lawyers to a higher standard than internet trolls. I don’t care that he’s doomed to fail, I care that he’s a despicable tool who’s grubbing for the support of white supremacists and religious housewives who are dazzled by his wardrobe and hair just as Cher was dazzled by Christian in the movie Clueless.

                  4. Why do people get so mad about attempted murder?

                    1. Now honestly, what is that? Do they give Nobel Prizes for Attempted Chemistry?

                2. “That’s insane. There is zero chance of success.”

                  Because the American voters didn’t “really” elect Trump. They really, actually, want him to just go away. The idiots who buy his schtick are welcome to continue to do so, with their own dollars, instead of the US Treasury.

          2. There’s a reason you didn’t notice it. Because it didn’t make the news. Because it wasn’t a serious attempt.

            Because, in 2001 (for instance), there was no actual support in the House, and NO (repeat, zero, none, nada) support in the Senate. And the defeated candidate, who (according to Gohmert) had the right to .. ahem, unilaterally declare himself Persident, gaveled the proceedings closed after 20 minutes and blessed the new president.

            Protest is fine- it was a close election, the popular vote was against him. But the peaceful transfer of power happened. You didn’t have Clinton and Gore trying to strongarm states into changing their results. Which is how things should be.

            1. Still, it would have been better if they’d done that protest outside the room, rather than objecting to the counting of the votes somehow.

              1. I agree it would have been better.

                But here’s the thing. There will always be a few cranks. Know what I mean? Think of any large group you’ve been a part of. There’s always … “that guy.”

                The 2000 election, well, it was kind of contentious there at the end! It was the first time, in a LONG TIME, that there was any issue w/r/t the popular vote and the EC. It really came down to a few thousand (or hundred, or whatever) votes in Florida.

                If anything, it was a credit to Gore and to the Democratic party establishment that, after a controversial 5-4 Supreme Court ruling, they moved on. That they did not let the cranks control the agenda. And that the administration was not using the levers of power to perpetuate itself in power.

                Because there will always be cranks. You just can’t let the cranks be the ones calling the shots.

            2. This is a protest, too. It has no significant chance of success. It’s just a larger scale protest. Once you decide that challenging electors is acceptable as a protest, how can you complain if more members do it, or if Senators play that game, too?

              Now, I’ll grant that this probably makes it easier to challenge electors for stupid reasons 4 years from now, just as Democrats made challenging them this year easier by challenging them 4 years ago.

              But it’s not like Democrats didn’t know going into this election that they were undermining it’s legitimacy by their widespread violations of election laws. They just didn’t care.

              Or maybe they were half expecting Trump to win, and wanted to be able to claim THAT was illegitimate? I don’t know.

              What I do know is that, when distrust is high, and the sides in an election don’t like each other one bit, is NOT the time to be cutting corners, making ad hoc changes to procedures, and throwing transparency to the wind.

              For instance, in Pennsylvania, Trump tried to have observers at satellite voting locations. He was blocked.

              You can argue about the merits of the legal case, but why in God’s name would you fight against allowing observers, unless you wanted the other side to think you were doing something illegal, and didn’t want witnesses?

              1. “This is a protest, too. It has no significant chance of success. It’s just a larger scale protest. Once you decide that challenging electors is acceptable as a protest, how can you complain if more members do it, or if Senators play that game, too?”

                I explained above. But if you don’t think that there is anything incorrect or improper with a sitting President using all the levers of power (including attempting to coerce and cajole elections officials, and attempting to make loyalty to him a litmus test) to try any unlawfully stay in power wrong, I don’t know what I can do for you Brett. We will have to agree to disagree.

                You seem unclear on the idea of how things can be different. But that’s okay! You seem to think that what is going on is acceptable. Again, I think that this (and your rationalizations) speak poorly of you, and hope that it leads to some moments of self-reflection. I won’t hold my breath. 🙂

                Take care.

                1. I think Trump has crossed a lot of ‘norms’ in contesting the election, and while some of them should have been crossed, some of them shouldn’t. I haven’t seen him break any actual laws yet.

                2. By the way, I notice you didn’t respond to the latter part of my comment. What do you think about refusing to let Trump have observers at satellite polling places, on the basis that they weren’t technically “polling places”, just places people were voting?

                  Legal or not, was that really a good idea in the current environment?

                  1. Brett,

                    No offense, but I don’t have time to research and shoot down all the … creative things you put up! I really don’t. I mean- just look at what you posted. It’s from early October. Was there an appeal? What was the final determination? What does this mean under Pa. state law, exactly? And how did this influence the election? And aren’t you the one that keeps demanding strict fidelity to election laws- so, assuming (arguendo) that this was the final ruling on the issue, and that this is what happened on the ground, if this is Pa. election law, shouldn’t it be followed? And why are you suddenly bringing up articles from a month before the election without any context?

                    Why do you suddenly think you are an expert in all these matters? How is it, that when things are explained to you, you keep bringing them up without correction? Why do you think people should explain an article to you from a month before the election? You understand that this is both exceedingly weird, and a bad look, right?

                    1. He’s talking about this story.

                      The problem is, the Trumpkins who aren’t operating in bad faith are operating out of ignorance. (Many, of course, are doing both.) They don’t understand the laws, they don’t know what is normal and what isn’t, what is allowed and what isn’t. So they claim things that are operating exactly as they’re supposed to are somehow wrong. They claim that being excluded from places they’re not entitled to be is a sign of fraud.

                3. “I explained above. But if you don’t think that there is anything incorrect or improper with a sitting President using all the levers of power (including attempting to coerce and cajole elections officials, and attempting to make loyalty to him a litmus test) to try any unlawfully stay in power wrong, I don’t know what I can do for you Brett.”

                  Well, it’s not like a violation of t he Quorum Clause that lets Congress appear to be in session or what not (shudders).

              2. “It has no significant chance of success.”

                A summary of 100% of Trump’s actions since 2017.

              3. You can argue about the merits of the legal case, but why in God’s name would you fight against allowing observers, unless you wanted the other side to think you were doing something illegal, and didn’t want witnesses?

                Not clear what “other side” you’re talking about here. Biden didn’t block these people. And “the merits of the legal case” were the “why in God’s name.” Pennsylvania law does not provide for “observers” at “satellite voting locations.” Random people don’t get to wander into board of elections offices.

            3. “11 times VP Biden was interrupted during Trump’s electoral vote certification”

              Tut-tut, right?

              Now comes objections to Biden’s election. AMERICAN FASCISM! END OF DEMOCRACY!

              Oh wait, there is a HUGE ENORMOUS DIFFERENCE! Eleven WHOLE SENATORS joined in the objection. SEE! THE DIFFERENCES ARE HUGE!

              1. Biden won’t be the VP until January 20th.

                1. Oops, that was from 2017

        2. How about someone who thinks rocks falling into the ocean raise sea levels?

          1. Well, they do. You forgot the rest of the headline, which explains the entertainment factor:

            Rocks falling into oceans, not climate, causing seas to rise, congressman suggests

            1. What causes seas to rise is when God opens the vault of Heaven, and waters pour into the world from the Void. And He said He wouldn’t do it again, which is guaranteed because rainbows. Get your theology correct.

    2. I appreciate the honesty.

      As I suspect, it’s mostly tribal and performative. It’s not about what actually happened, but about asserting your identity.

      1. It is about what actually happened. In 2004. And in 2016. And in 2018. And in this election.

        As I say, what goes around comes around. Democrats want THEIR hack Pennsylvania judges fixing their elections by manipulating the rules in their favor? Fine. Don’t be surprised when MY hack judges in State XX change the rules in my favor in 2022.

        Democrats and bien pensants need to get that through their thick skulls.

        1. I mean, sure.

          Given that you likely suspect the Democrats are molesting children, it is hardly a surprise that you fully embrace the new GOP “leave no child unmolested” pledge.

          I hope you find a way to deal with your anger in a more productive manner. Good luck!

          1. “Given that you likely suspect the Democrats are molesting children”

            Talk about “tribal and performative” and “not about what actually happened, but about asserting your identity”…

            (As I said above, I’m a Biden voter. And a Clinton voter before that.)

            1. “(As I said above, I’m a Biden voter. And a Clinton voter before that.)”

              Sure you are!

              Like I wrote, I hope you find a productive way to channel your anger. Local charities always need enthusiastic volunteers. You can make a difference where it counts.

              Good luck, and have a happy and safe 2021!

              1. Meh. This is all sound and fury. And has been since November 3.

                I am angry this morning, but mostly about the Eagles “performance” last night.

                1. They just started tanking a bit late to win the “Clemson guy” prize, is all.

    3. Except that while the Trump cult has been going apeshit over the GA election results and discouraging their followers from voting in the runoff, the progs have been very busy turning out their voters. The result will be a president Biden/Harris with no checks on whatever leftist crap they want to ram down our throats. And this is a strong possibility even with two candidates who would be considered leftists even by deep blue state standards. Shitting in your own punchbowl, nice work!

      1. Open wider, clingers.

        Bigoted, half-educated, vote-suppressing right-wingers deserve everything that is coming to them. Perhaps you will receive some mercy after you beg for it.

    4. In 2000 Bush won an election that, by virtually every fair measure available, Gore should have won.

      In 2004 a number of decisive states used voting machines (ones used to CAST the vote) manufactured by GOP firms and that left no paper trail. Ones that voting machine experts said were designed so badly they looked like they were built to commit election fraud.

      In 2016 Russia committed a series of cyber attacks on the Democratic party and Clinton’s campaign, Obama asked McConnell to put out a joint statement against the attacks and McConnell refused. The FBI concealed an investigation into Trump’s campaign (which eventually sent multiple people to jail) and broke policy to announce a re-opening of an investigation into Clinton days before the election (an re-opening that found no wrongdoing).

      So if you’re going to say “ooh, do this cause my side has been so wrong!!!!” I’m going to hand you a very tiny violin followed by a request to STFU.

      The fact is that people always think their side has gotten treated unfairly. That you’ve taken it so far as to use symbolic protests as justification for an attempted coup is just taking persecution complex to an absurd degree.

      1. “Ones that voting machine experts said were designed so badly they looked like they were built to commit election fraud.”

        That’s been said about the Dominion machines used this year, too. The truth is that most voting machines are horribly designed from a security standpoint, to the point where you’d almost have to ask if “subject to manipulation” was on the list of specs the manufacturers had been given.

        “Not subject to manipulation” certainly hasn’t been one of the design requirements.

        1. Not by serious people. Dominion machines generate a paper trail. They have sent c&d’s and perhaps even filed lawsuits against people saying they perpetuated or were used to perpetuate fraud.

          E&S machines, on the other hand, leave no trail, and were used in most of the states that had a surprising GOP swing over polling. But of course, nothing to see there, right? You are just interested in secure elections, not motivated reasoning, but are for some reason not interested in any of that. Curious.

          1. I find pretty much all voting machines objectionable, I prefer that the voter themselves mark the ballot. I’m actually a fan of scantron ballots, which have a nice combination of human marking and machine readability.

            The Dominion machines generate a paper trail, but since it isn’t marked by the voter themselves, that trail isn’t guaranteed to reflect the votes entered. Not every voter inspects their printout, the way I make a point of doing.

            1. No, let me correct that, it appears that most Dominion machines don’t have that liability. My concerns on this score would be limited to their “imagecast” machines, that mark the ballot for you.

        2. That’s been said about the Dominion machines used this year, too.

          Sure… but the difference is that claim doesn’t make any sense.

          The Diebold machines were purely electronic voting machines.

          Ie, you’d go up to cast your vote and it would record your vote on a memory card with no paper trail.

          There was literally no way to audit the results, no way for a voter to ensure their vote was actually recorded. You were just trusting the software.

          There were a bunch of documented secondary security problems to go with it, but the fundamental issue that made people justifiably suspect malfeasance was the lack of a paper trail.

          The conspiracies around the Dominion machines on the other hand are frankly pretty stupid.

          The Diebold machines actually recorded the original vote, so there was a plausible mechanism for fraud. And the lack of a paper trail meant that fraud would be undetectable.

          But the Dominion machines are ballot counting machines, they don’t actually record the vote. If you doubt their results you can do a manual recount of the original votes.

          And people have done this, repeatedly, and the counts match (except for rare instances of machine misconfiguration).

        3. ” The truth is that most voting machines are horribly designed from a security standpoint”

          Can you provide an example of anyone who knows anything about information security saying this, or should we assume it’s as accurate as something Trump says?

  7. Revealed preferences are a heckuva thing.

  8. Republicans should imitate the Democrats in the future. Send home the poll watchers. Back up the trucks at 3 AM. Dump tens of thousands of unfolded mail in ballots, with only the Presidential votes checked off.

    Biden. Not my President. Appoint a Special Counsel to investigate his China collusion. When the House goes Republican in 2022, impeach him.

    I feel sorry for the poor people of Venezuela. I will enjoy the suffering of the Democrat constituents. They busted records of prosperity, under Trump. Now, it’s welcome to Venezuela, Democrats. Enjoy the homeless addicts you will be forced to house in your upstairs suburban bedrooms.

    1. Yep- all this fraud and everything else that the Trump admin could’ve presented in court but presented ZERO.

      Fuck you and your fascist pals.

    2. Stock Market’s gonna crash and Baby Boomers gonna scream. 🙂

      1. True. The S&P 500 is down 0.19% already!

        1. It was pretty much a given that, once Trump lost, investors would start looking at Biden’s campaign promises. But I don’t expect the real drop to take place until Biden is in office and starts to act on them.

          Hopefully most of them were just sops to his party’s left, and will be ignored.

          1. It was pretty much a given that, once Trump lost, investors would start looking at Biden’s campaign promises.

            You don’t understand much about the stock market.

            1. Or about economics, apparently.

          2. We already got out stock market pop weeks ago when the electoral count went in Biden’s favor. No one placing bets in the market waited until today to decide who the president was gonna be in 2021.

            1. Probably even earlier, given polling.

              1. Smart money would have waited post-election to see how close it would be.

                It’s been obvious since 2016 that Trump would never concede if he lost in 2020. The question was always how far the GOP would follow him down that path.

                As it turns out, the answer is quite a bit. If it really had come down to one close state I really do think the GOP would have made a serious effort to overturn the result. And if that happened you’re starting to flirt with widespread political violence and talk of civil war.

                Of course, I can’t really see evidence of this in the market trends itself. Which makes me wonder, did institutional investors have a different view of the risk of this outcome, or did they simply think it wouldn’t affect the market.

      2. “Stock Market’s gonna crash”

        DJIA went over 30,000 when Biden was announced as the winner. Who is screaming about this kind of crashing?

    3. “Republicans should imitate the Democrats in the future. ”

      Indeed. Abandon the fever-dream conspiracy theories.

  9. A Republican w/ ethics & backbone…. Talk about an endangered species!

    1. The current governor of Georgia should be added to that list.

      1. Yes. The entire list:

        Governor of Georgia (with some serious caveats about how he came to power in the first place)

        Mitt Romney


    2. Geez. As if the Democrats are paragons of virtue.

      Y’all are arguing back and forth like children. “You did it first”. “No this is worse” without thinking about the implications of what you’re saying.

      Both sides are the same. Neither is better. The people you slavishly support are just the same as those you detest. Wake the fuck up.

      1. Nope.

        Democrats never gleefully invited a foreign enemy into our national conversation, or encouraged them to steal emails to help a democratic campaign.

        Democrats never did the full frontal assault we see on the very basis of our government today. Trump was caught on tape, a-fucking-gain, trying to strong arm an election official into “finding votes”. Never.

        This is not the same, and it is easy to see.

        1. Democrats were the originators of the freaking Steele Dossier. Remember that? The document that had all kinds of made up bullshit about Trump that originated with Russian security people?

          But no, your side would never engage with foreign entities to gain power. Lol.

          Out of the hole dude.

          1. As you might remember, the dossier was originally requested by GOP Presidential Candidates as opposition research on Trump.

            Later, Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the DNC requested that information.

            Most of the Steele dossier was compiled after the election, without the involvement of either the DNC or the GOP, and was provided to intelligence services. Like most raw intelligence material, it shouldn’t be taken as gospel, but the information in it should be viewed judiciously and skeptically.

            I am sure that you have a correct and balanced view of things.

      2. “Both sides are the same. Neither is better.”

        I reject party politics. But pretending the parties are equally dreadful is gross oversimplification.

        1. They are precisely equally dreadful.

          Sometimes in the same way, like what happened in 2001, 2005 and will happen on January 6.

          Sometimes in different ways. But they’re both appalling.

          Right now the scale is tilted because the Republicans are afflicted with Trump. But eventually he’ll be gone and the Democrats will move heaven and earth to catch right up on the awfulness scale. Sure as the sun rises in the East it’ll happen.

  10. By the way, I understand that Chip Roy was Ted Cruz’s chief of staff before he ran for Congress himself.

    Meanwhile, the calls for a primary challenge against him have already started:

  11. Facially, this sounds legit; however it’s really an attempt to confuse & obfuscate. The widespread fraud didn’t occur at the precinct level, tabulation doesn’t occur at that level. The counting shenanigans were at the county & state levels w/mail ballots & in Democrat party strongholds. Democrats target their own areas when they commit fraud b/c easier for them to manipulate. Plus, areas w/more votes than residents, ballots w/no chain of custody, mysteriously appearing boxes from vans, under tables, etc. were generally votes by mail, marked for President/VP only & no votes cast down ballot.

    1. Wow, that sounds like quite a sophisticated conspiracy. I wonder why, while they were at it, the Democrats didn’t also take over the Senate and avoid seat losses in the House.

    2. ” The counting shenanigans were at the county & state levels w/mail ballots & in Democrat party strongholds.”

      This is true if you consider counting votes for Democrats to be fraudulent, which is a trait limited to Republicans.

      “No fair! Their candidate will win if all the votes are counted. Only OUR votes should count!”

  12. Roy’s stunt – Great! Sure showed those Trumpists!

    Howley’s stunt – Coup! Democracy at Risk!

    1. Roy did what Trump is trying to do. Ignore the will of the voters.

    2. Roy’s “stunt” was in response to the Howley’s, you utterly unamerican traitor.

      1. Both stunts. Both of no importance.

        You won dude, Trump is leaving, yet you are hysterically mad.

        Take a walk, log off your computer.

        1. You won dude, Trump is leaving, yet he is hysterically mad.

          1. The guy above calling people on a message board that he disagrees with traitors is really hysterically mad.

            And you’re defending traitorous Democratic behavior from the last decade. What does that make you?

          2. The only way Trump is leaving is kicking and screaming like a 3-year-old who’s been told he can’t have “pink vanilla” ice cream for dinner.

  13. Adler’s subtitle of “bluff” and that Roy is “on record opposing efforts to challenge validly appointed presidential electors,” suggests this was a parliamentary maneuver to force votes on the record validating the elections in the “questioned” states. Not an actual challenge by a Trumpian kool aid drinker. Is that correct? If so, then good for Roy. A very solid maneuver.

    1. “votes on the record”

      On the record! That will sure show everyone.

      How many people on the last Sunday of NFL football regular season [and the end of holiday vacations] even knew the new Congress was starting? Let alone paid attention to “votes on the record”?.

      1. Showing “everyone” isn’t the point of a parliamentary maneuver.

        The point in this case I believe would be to provide a logical basis to say the House widely accepts the election in the contested states as valid.

        1. “logical basis to say the House widely accepts the election”

          Well, that will show everyone! We accept the results of elections no one is contesting. Take that Trump!

          Roy’s stunt matters not at all.

          1. It illustrates the hypocritical and nonsensical argument coming from the Trump cult.

            The only issue is that the people he means to illustrate that for are too moronic to comprehend symbolism, or even simple comparison.

            1. “hypocritical and nonsensical”

              Politicians being hypocritical and talking nonsense.

              AKA a day ending in “day”.

              1. ” AKA a day ending in ‘day'”
                Actually, it’s the 4th of January, making this a day ending in “uary”

  14. My position is summarized in four points. First, I agree with the City of Detroit in that the incorrect results of this election cycle are not novel; that is, this year’s election results were as incorrect as ever. Second, I agree with most (but not all: the legislature of Pennsylvania makes an interesting argument) of the opinions of the Courts regarding this year’s election… and encourage everyone to embrace the logic in preparation for the next cycle: the various rulings make multiple election techniques far easier to implement and virtually impossible to reverse, so they are truly useful (albeit in a manner some — the future non-winners — might find inconvenient and/or unfair). Third, Biden enters office with historically low support both in Congress and throughout the nation: what support Biden has is concentrated in geographically tiny areas inhabited by those who cannot produce their own food, water, and energy and who have only a “non-essential” non-contributing role in society.

    Fourth, the next election has already begun. Later this week, many essential citizens will take to the streets of DC and the current occupants of DC are truly frightened — with good reason. As a nation, we have always tolerated the views loudly expressed by our unarmed, non-essential, and non-contributing fellow citizens but have done so with the implicit understanding that such burdensome members of our society would exhibit some thanksgiving for the bounty they receive. Absent such thanksgiving, the well-armed, essential, contributing members of society might elect to cease providing food, water, and energy.

    1. Your argument seems to be that a bunch of militarized farmers have the moral right to forcefully take power.

      I belive you’ve talked yourself into fascism.

      1. exactly what it is. He deems Biden voters as “non-essential”.

        Wait till he finds out whose tax dollars all those farmers are living off of.

        Or better yet, wait till he learns how few of his beloved hill-jacks are actually farmers, or employed meaningfully at all, vs the high employment and earning rate of urban dwellers.

    2. “. . .might elect to cease providing food, water, and energy.”


      You mean selling for a profit, right?
      And you mean corporate farms and utilities, who like to sell things for a profit, right?

      It’s sad you think little mom-n-pop family farms are the backbone of our robust society, and that they could hold somehow extort us.

      1. If you guys could turn off the rain, that’d be nice for the flooding areas.

    3. Well, the best I can say for this warped crazy nonsense is it really reminds you why we’re better off under capitalism.

    4. You’re a nut, sir.

    5. thanksgiving for the bounty they receive

      I don’t get any of this bounty.

      When I go the grocery store I have to pay. Not to mention the taxes I pay on top of that to subsidize farmers.

      1. We have to subsidize the farmers since our national policy was to start a trade war with foreign agricultural consumers. Now that we can’t sell soybeans to China, we have to figure out a way to get Americans to eat ’em.

    6. “Fourth, the next election has already begun.”

      Perhaps the Republicans will nominate an adult this time around.

    7. mydisplayname, after slight disruptions, the residents of blue states you suppose could be made hostages would instead divert the money they now lavish on the red states to vendors abroad. Food, energy, and raw materials would remain available in abundance on international markets—and accessible with maximal efficiency by ocean shipping directly to blue state ports.

      The probable real-world result of any attempt to cut red-state economies off from blue state markets: initial slight inconvenience in the blue states, quickly followed by renewal of plentiful supplies—and often lower prices—for substitute commodities purchased from abroad. Also, economic ruin for red state residents and their economies, who would be powerless to consume most of what they now sell to the blue states.

      What you suggest was once more-or-less tried previously, during the Civil War, when the economic power of King Cotton was supposed to bring the North to heel. It took more than a century to undo the economic damage that miscalculation inflicted on the South.

  15. Please note that this jewish clown Adler makes a leap between a vote of elected representatives and personal ‘beliefs’. Nothing more than Orwellian mind trick, Adler the magnificent writes political fiction to clog the bandwidth of the internet, pointless and of no entertainment value, but does prove Adler is just another jerk hiding in the bowels of a no name law school, pretending to be a professor of law, having nothing to contribute to society. Note that the American phrase, ‘vote early, vote often’ came from the same political process which is playing out today. The country has a long history of rigging elections, stuffing ballot boxes and approving of same in the end. How Adler can be so foolish betrays his jewish agenda to mind warp the goy. Just another shill to be ignored!!!

    1. ….this is satire right?

      1. Some of the right-wingers around here have sharper elbows — and are less guarded about their genuine movement conservatism beliefs — than others.

        If you operate a blog that presents unvarnished conservative opinion, you will have some of this.

    2. And yet, no evidence. Not a shred. 60 courtroom embarrassments. Not just losses, embarrassments.

      1. Trump’s been secretly a Democrat the whole time, infiltrating the Republicans and destroying them from within.
        Now you know why he kept attacking the NFL and military.

    3. This one of those comments that likely wouldn’t be allowed elsewhere but people here tell me it contributes to the discourse…

      1. Remember . . . this guy is welcome here; Artie Ray was banned for making fun of conservatives; and I have been censored repeatedly for using “sl_ck-jaw” and “c_p succ_r,” terms the proprietor believes hurt conservatives’ feelings.

        This white, male, conservative
        blog has operated for
        THREE (3) DAYS
        without gratuitous use
        of a vile racial slur and
        619 DAYS
        since engaging in partisan,
        viewpoint-driven censorship.

  16. These are the two representatives that voted for his objection.
    Reps. Morgan Griffith (R-Va.) and Andy Harris (R-Md.)
    Apparently he didn’t vote for it himself.

    1. “Apparently he didn’t vote for it himself.”

      It was just a stunt, Roy is in the McCain publicity seeking mold.

      Did his statement in support include noun, verb and “former CIA” as it usually does?

      1. I will retract this:

        Did his statement in support include noun, verb and “former CIA” as it usually does?

        Confused Roy with Will Hurd.

  17. UPDATE, I went to the House site.

    There were three roll call votes listed and only one listed 371-2.

    The roll call vote was to authorize the Speaker to administer the oath of office. TWO Republicans voted no.

    Griffith (R-VA)
    Harris (R-MD)

    1. Huh? They needed to vote to authorise the Speaker to administer the oath of office? Who else would do that?

  18. My $0.02

    I think there are enough concerns around the security of US elections to justify a Congressional investigation. Concerns that go back decades.

    That said, I don’t think that the outcome of any particular election should be tied to that investigation and it especially should not be rushed in an effort to affect Congressional certification of the 2020 Presidential election outcome.

    1. Unless you are proposing federalization of all elections, what, precisely, is stopping the elected clingers in Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and other states from conducting the investigation you claim to favor?

    2. There are other concerns besides security.

      But hey, John Roberts isn’t worried.

      1. Depends on how big a problem you think routine disenfranchisement is. To Republicans, that’s no kind of problem.

      2. I never suggested that security was the only concern.

  19. Nicely said. Rep. Roy’s comments are appreciated.

  20. This morning I emailed Rep. Chip Roy’s office. I am not from his district, but if he will primary Ted Cruz in 2024, I’ve offered to be his first max-limit campaign donor.

    Ted Cruz is dead to me. I write that in sorrow, having been a fan of his since he was Texas’ solicitor general in the early 2000s, before he sold his soul to become a lickspittle for Donald Trump.

    1. It’s the same Cruz as always.

      He caused a prolonged shut down in 2013, damaging the economy and disrupting millions of peoples lives, as a political stunt to launch his 2016 Presidential bid.

      Then in 2016 he hurt his party speaking against Trump at the RNC Convention in an effort to cast himself as the anti-Trump (in case Trump’s support imploded).

      Now that Trump seems to own the party he’s trying to position himself as Trump’s successor for 2020 by attacking the constitution.

      Cruz never had a soul to sell.

      1. Indeed. There’s a reason why every Republican senator hates him, and many have gone on the record about it. He only knows how to break things, not to build them.

        1. One of my state’s senators told me that some senators detest Rand Paul more than they despise Ted Cruz.

  21. Just whip up some originalism style historical analysis. A letter Congressman Egbert Benson wrote to his mother-in-law in 1793 wherein he referred to impeachment as a judicial action.
    sharikat tanzif mukayafat bialriyad

Please to post comments