Trump loyalists in Congress to challenge Electoral College results in Jan. 6 joint session (Update: Insurrectionists storm Congress)(And now what?) (1 Viewer)

[superchuck500]

I guess it's time to start a thread for this. We know that at least 140 members of Congress have pledged to join the objection. Under federal law, if at least one member of each house (HOR and Senate) objects, each house will adjourn the joint session for their own session (limited at two hours) to take up the objection. If both houses pass a resolution objecting to the EC result, further action can take place. If both houses do not (i.e. if one or neither passes a resolution), the objection is powerless and the college result is certified.

Clearly this is political theater as we know such a resolution will not pass the House, and there's good reason to think it wouldn't pass the Senate either (with or without the two senators from Georgia). The January 6 joint session is traditionally a ceremonial one. This one will not be.

Many traditional pillars of Republican support have condemned the plan as futile and damaging. Certainly the Trump loyalists don't care - and many are likely doing it for fundraising purposes or to carry weight with the fraction of their constituencies that think this is a good idea.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32717.pdf

 

[RobF]

Was that ACTUALLY the poll question ? The language does not LOOK like a Yougov poll ?

Yes, it ACTUALLY was, and the language DOES look like a YouGov poll, why would you THINK it doesn't.

YouGov

today.yougov.com

 

[Roofgardener]

no, he believes he is king. He stated directly, that the constitution says he can do whatever he wants.

Truly ? Wow.. that is really bad.
Could you link to where he said that ?

 

[RobF]

And REALLY curiously - 56% thought that the election was swung by fraud

No, that is not what that shows. The lines correspond to groups. That line shows what proportion of the people who think the election was swung by fraud agreed with the notion of supporting storming the capital building. It does not show what proportion of people think the election was swung by fraud.

Edit to add: you can see the full breakdowns if you follow the links from the polling.

https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/7e6digtwqp/capitol-protest-crosstabs-adobe.pdf

In this poll, 35% of respondents agreed with the notion that 'some fraud took place and it was enough to change who won the election'. Which is not 56% (although it remains shockingly high given the complete lack of even remotely compelling evidence to that effect).

 

[bdb13]

About a thousand percent chance that new guy here's a retread who will be banned by the afternoon, so treat as such I'd say.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

Here's the scene with Connor Lamb calling out the Rs as liars. Wish C-SPAN had a better angle.

 

[Roofgardener]

No, that is not what that shows. The lines correspond to groups. That line shows what proportion of the people who think the election was swung by fraud agreed with the notion supported storming the capital building. It does not show what proportion of people think the election was swung by fraud.

Edit to add: you can see the full breakdowns if you follow the links from the polling.

https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/7e6digtwqp/capitol-protest-crosstabs-adobe.pdf

In this poll, 35% of respondents agreed with the notion that 'some fraud took place and it was enough to change who won the election'. Which is not 56% (although it remains shockingly high given the complete lack of even remotely compelling evidence to that effect).

Ah right. Thanks for that clarification.

About a thousand percent chance that new guy here's a retread who will be banned by the afternoon, so treat such I'd say.

Thank you for your warm welcome. I was under the impression that this was a DEBATE forum. Do you treat all people with a differing opinion this way ? And why on earth should I be banned ?

 

[Booker]

He literally refers to himself as a king right here...

 

[MT15]

"Pretty obvious to everyone..". As in... "pretty obvious to everyone who wants an excuse - ANY excuse - to criticise Donald Trump". If he was so candid, could you give me an example of where he wished to be an autocrat ?

Mind you, in his previous role as CEO of the Trump Empire, he didn't have as many restrictions on his actions as he does now, that is true.

No, if you had been paying any attention at all to Trump during the past 5 years you would know how many times he has exulted in his real and imagined powers.

You think an excuse is needed to criticize Trump? After yesterday? Troll. Sorry, obvious troll.

 

[Roofgardener]

He literally refers to himself as a king right here...

Oh please... Trump was invoking a METAPHOR for politics, not speaking literally. Isn't that obvious from the context ? (although it's worrying that he seems to be talking about himself in the 3rd person)

 

[GrandAdmiral]

Mulvaney just quit.

 

[samiam5211]

"Pretty obvious to everyone..". As in... "pretty obvious to everyone who wants an excuse - ANY excuse - to criticise Donald Trump". If he was so candid, could you give me an example of where he wished to be an autocrat ?

Mind you, in his previous role as CEO of the Trump Empire, he didn't have as many restrictions on his actions as he does now, that is true.

Anyone not criticizing Trump after yesterday should be ashamed.

Anyone asking for evidence of Trump wishing he was an autocrat, is either disingenuous or ignorant.

 

[Roofgardener]

Update on the above....
That was NOT Donald Trump speaking. It was Peter Baker of the New York Times (a newspaper dedicated to denigrating Trump wherever possible) who said that ! Donald Trump was sarcastically quoting him !

 

[brandon]

Update on the above....
That was NOT Donald Trump speaking. It was Peter Baker of the New York Times (a newspaper dedicated to denigrating Trump wherever possible) who said that ! Donald Trump was sarcastically quoting him !

Just go away. We don't have time for this shirt any more.

 

[Roofgardener]

Anyone asking for evidence of Trump wishing he was an autocrat, is either disingenuous or ignorant.

And yet - curiously - you can't provide such evidence ? So who's being disingenuous or ignorant now ?

 

[MT15]

This thread isn’t about proving the obvious to you.

 

[wardorican]

About a thousand percent chance that new guy here's a retread who will be banned by the afternoon, so treat as such I'd say.

I'd recommend just responding in as thoughtful a way as possible. Dont assume retreads, this is just how their party is. Learn to discuss matters with type of thinking.

All you will do is get yourself in trouble.

 

[brandon]

I'd recommend just responding in as thoughtful a way as possible. Dont assume retreads, this is just how their party is. Learn to discuss matters with type of thinking.

All you will do is get yourself in trouble.

Ward, you gotta come of this "Dad" schtick.

We don't negotiate with terrorists. The end.

 

[efil4]

This roof garden fella is the living version of a meme