We need to make a very public example of these insurrectionist Republicans

[ChristianProgressive]

Examples: Josh Hawley needs to be drug right off the Senate floor in handcuffs and perp-walked right out the front door of the Capitol. Speaker Pelosi needs to invoke the 14th Amendment and kick out all 130-odd GOPpers who still voted to not certify the election results. And these terrorists who are out on bail and going on vacations need to be rounded up and put in GITMO.

Biden and the Democrats are still treating Jan 6 as a mere riot or a political disagreement, when they should be treating it as Treason and Sedition.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by ChristianProgressive

Speaker Pelosi needs to invoke the 14th Amendment and kick out all 130-odd GOPpers who still voted to not certify the election results.

You are basically saying that they should be expelled for voting "no" on a resolution put to the house. That would have a seriously chilling effect on democracy.

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by psionl0

You are basically saying that they should be expelled for voting "no" on a resolution put to the house. That would have a seriously chilling effect on democracy.

A vote they are allowed to cast. And frankly, I bet, many truly believe.

[The Great Zaganza]

IF there is evidence that Hawley or Greene help facilitate the attacks, then yes, of course, they should be kicked from the House and prosecuted.

But even though I agree that spreading lies and supporting the acts of the Rioters via their vote/speech in the House is unbecoming and grounds for impeachment, they should get a lot of Benefit of Doubt, simply because it is so important to have the ability of honest debate in Congress.
Not that anyone ever exercises that ability...

[ChristianProgressive]

Originally Posted by psionl0

You are basically saying that they should be expelled for voting "no" on a resolution put to the house. That would have a seriously chilling effect on democracy.

That resolution should never have been brought. Period. There was ZETO evidence of election fraud (unlike 2016). The election was fully certified by 50 states, the DoJ, and multiple courts and they still refused to comply with the truth.

Furthermore, there is evidence that some of those GOPpers led reconnaissance tours in the days prior to the terrorist assault on Congress and some house reps expressed the belief that they attempted to disclose the location of the panic room to the insurrectionist mob.

[Thermal]

Ya the OP is a tad over the top, but the spirit is valid. Starting with the former President on down to the lowliest Capitol trashers, this should be dealt with as a series of serious crimes. Not treason, by definition, but at least treated with the symbolic force that voter fraud is penalized as: big felony time.

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by ChristianProgressive

That resolution should never have been brought. Period. There was ZETO evidence of election fraud (unlike 2016). The election was fully certified by 50 states, the DoJ, and multiple courts and they still refused to comply with the truth.

I think many legitimately feel there is evidence.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

I think many legitimately feel there is evidence.

Are feelings meritorious grounds for contesting election results?

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Are feelings meritorious grounds for contesting election results?

Yes. Because we who think the evidence points to it obviously not being rigged ultimately amounts to us feeling the opposite way as them.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

Yes. Because we who think the evidence points to it obviously not being rigged ultimately amounts to us feeling the opposite way as them.

I don't think feelings are viewed as meritorious grounds. If they think something, and can show merit for cause, then they have a horse race. But you were right the first time. This is about their feelings, not facts. Courts kind of like facts.

Eta: the facts that lead them to their feelings may have merit, but the feelings standalone do not, some emotional damages et al excepted

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by Thermal

I don't think feelings are viewed as meritorious grounds. If they think something, and can show merit for cause, then they have a horse race. But you were right the first time. This is about their feelings, not facts. Courts kind of like facts.

They provide evidence. I reject it as bad. But I can't deny that they are convinced by the evidence.


For the record, when I use, "feel" I mean in the sense that one feels gravity exists....a substitute for thoughts.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by psionl0

You are basically saying that they should be expelled for voting "no" on a resolution put to the house. That would have a seriously chilling effect on democracy.

It's much more than that, and your characterisation of the events is pretty disingenuous. They voted against the results of a democratic election!

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

They provide evidence. I reject it as bad. But I can't deny that they are convinced by the evidence.


For the record, when I use, "feel" I mean in the sense that one feels gravity exists....a substitute for thoughts.

Gotcha. I'm not sure that they are convinced about their own evidence, tho. Pretty sure it's more a game.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

Yes. Because we who think the evidence points to it obviously not being rigged ultimately amounts to us feeling the opposite way as them.

Some opinions are worth than others e.g. opinions supported by evidence vs those who are not.

Don't pretend that you don't understand this.

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Some opinions are worth than others e.g. opinions supported by evidence vs those who are not.

Don't pretend that you don't understand this.

No opinion is worth anything. That my explain why I'm more open to a relative evaluation of their belief in their opinion.

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Gotcha. I'm not sure that they are convinced about their own evidence, tho. Pretty sure it's more a game.

Someone mentioned hawley and greene. Hawley is probably faking it. But the reason we seem to dislike Greene is we regard her views as genuine.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by Belz...

It's much more than that, and your characterisation of the events is pretty disingenuous. They voted against the results of a democratic election!

As did 31 Democrats in 2004.

And in 2016 Democrats actually objected to certifying more states results than the GOP did this time around:

Quote:

Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) objected to Alabama's votes.
Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) objected to Florida's votes.
Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) objected to Georgia's votes.
Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) objected to North Carolina's votes.
Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) objected to the votes from North Carolina in addition to votes from South Carolina and Wisconsin. She also stood up and objected citing "massive voter suppression" after Mississippi's votes were announced.
Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) brought up allegations of Russian interference in the election and malfunctioning voting machines when she objected following the announcement of Michigan's votes.
Maxine Waters (D-Calif) rose and said, "I do not wish to debate. I wish to ask 'Is there one United States senator who will join me in this letter of objection?'" after the announcement of Wyoming's votes.

And that's without even bringing up the circus of 2000.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

Someone mentioned hawley and greene. Hawley is probably faking it. But the reason we seem to dislike Greene is we regard her views as genuine.

Greene may be the scariest type, one who mutates from partisan mega-troll to one who convinces themselves the tripe is real. They worry me because facts and reason mean nothing to them.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by psionl0

You are basically saying that they should be expelled for voting "no" on a resolution put to the house. That would have a seriously chilling effect on democracy.

Exactly supporting those trying to overthrow it is a fundamental part of democracy. I mean you can't let a bunch of blacks decide the election in America after all. Fortunately they are on that and getting serious about disenfranchisement the halmark of any great democracy.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Are feelings meritorious grounds for contesting election results?

They counted the black votes, and not even at the mandated 60% max. If you only count the proper white votes the results are very different.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Brainster

As did 31 Democrats in 2004.

I have no idea what the question was.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by Belz...

I have no idea what the question was.

Yea was to not certify Ohio's electors.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Yea was to not certify Ohio's electors.

Not that I support that move, the justification seems very different.

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Not that I support that move, the justification seems very different.

Then let's just dispense with democracy and Belz can declare what matters and doesn't.

[newyorkguy]

I was on federal jury duty once and the judge, Colleen McMahon (who is now chief justice for the Southern District), explained some things to the jury that I have always remembered. One was, conventional wisdom may have it that the law is "an ass" but at the same time, the law is not a fool. This is a good example. There is such a thing as standards of evidence. The evidence that the 'trump won' people base their objections on in no way meets that standard. The law recognizes that litigants with a bad case, or litigants trying to mislead and obscure the truth, will cite any kind of evidence they can devise and claim it 'proves' what ever it is they're trying to prove. Not all evidence is equal, or even in the same time zone for that matter. It's foolish to pretend otherwise. There's a reason why most courts rejected their claims.

The Washington Post reported: on claims that voting software was corrupted. "There is no evidence that any voting systems were compromised, according to the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which is part of the Department of Homeland Security."

trump won people insist that in one Michigan county votes were switched from trump to Biden. Not true. The Post found: "Antrim County, which Trump won by 30 points in 2016, initially was awarded to Biden. Election officials questioned those unofficial results and found human, not machine, error. The county clerk failed to update the software used to collect voting-machine totals before sending the results. The mistake caused a discrepancy in vote tallies for a few hours, according to an explanation posted Nov. 6 on the website of Michigan’s secretary of state, and it was corrected."

It goes on and on like that. This is not good evidence and no reasonable person should be convinced otherwise.

There's a reason why, as administration staff reported, at an Oval Office meeting, when trump began to berate USAG William Barr for not finding the 'truth,' Barr became furious and shouted back" "That's ********!"

Cause that's exactly what all this is: ********.

Washington Post article (non-paywalled)

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by newyorkguy

The Washington Post reported: on claims that voting software was corrupted. "There is no evidence that any voting systems were compromised, according to the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which is part of the Department of Homeland Security."

Yeah but the department is deep state. You can't trust them!

Quote:

trump won people insist that in one Michigan county votes were switched from trump to Biden. Not true. The Post found: "Antrim County, which Trump won by 30 points in 2016, initially was awarded to Biden. Election officials questioned those unofficial results and found human, not machine, error. The county clerk failed to update the software used to collect voting-machine totals before sending the results. The mistake caused a discrepancy in vote tallies for a few hours, according to an explanation posted Nov. 6 on the website of Michigan’s secretary of state, and it was corrected."

That's MSM fake news. You can't trust them!

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by newyorkguy

It goes on and on like that. This is not good evidence and no reasonable person should be convinced otherwise.

All well and good, no one here was fooled...but there are people convinced by the evidence. It isn't clear what to do about that.

[Senex]

We need to make a very public example of these insurrectionist Republicans

One should never use "public example" in a thread topic. It's a triggering word. I will never forget the public example my sixth grade nun made of Becky. Why did you even go there?

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Not that I support that move, the justification seems very different.

Both instances were political grandstanding; as is the suggestion in the OP.

[Crossbow]

Originally Posted by ChristianProgressive

Examples: Josh Hawley needs to be drug right off the Senate floor in handcuffs and perp-walked right out the front door of the Capitol. Speaker Pelosi needs to invoke the 14th Amendment and kick out all 130-odd GOPpers who still voted to not certify the election results. And these terrorists who are out on bail and going on vacations need to be rounded up and put in GITMO.

Biden and the Democrats are still treating Jan 6 as a mere riot or a political disagreement, when they should be treating it as Treason and Sedition.

Sorry, but I quite disagree.

Imprisoning people for voting in a certain way in an election that is legally required (in this case, the vote concerning the House election certification), is quite undemocratic.

Furthermore, I can think of one case where a sitting member of the House of Representatives was obviously involved in the Capitol insurrection and this person soon resigned his seat and he is now facing criminal charges.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Crossbow

Sorry, but I quite disagree.

Imprisoning people for voting in a certain way in an election that is legally required (in this case, the vote concerning the House election certification), is quite undemocratic.

Furthermore, I can think of one case where a sitting member of the House of Representatives was obviously involved in the Capitol insurrection and this person soon resigned his seat and he is now facing criminal charges.

Is there nothing undemocratic about a coup by the legislature? I get it it is the electoral equivalent of jury nullification or a good old fashioned lynching. Features not bugs of the judicial system.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by ChristianProgressive

That resolution should never have been brought. Period.

The rules for counting electoral votes have been around since 1877. If these rules allow the house to vote on the legitimacy of electors then you can't penalize anybody who proposes a resolution that challenges their legitimacy nor those who voted in favour of the resolution.

If you believe that the congress shouldn't have the authority to decide on the legitimacy of electors then fine but it also means that in cases of genuine fraud, there is nothing that congress can do about it.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Both instances were political grandstanding; as is the suggestion in the OP.

Bull ****.

A significant minority of GOP legislators thought they should prevent Biden from being declared the winner of a legit election. They contributed to an insurrection against an election that was won by 9 million votes. It wasn't even close. It wasn't close in any of the state elections that were being contested.

You can repeat this false equivalency until you are blue in the face. Who do you think you are convincing with this crap?

[SuburbanTurkey]

Here I was excited that this thread was going to be a list of MA violating suggestions for direct action and it's just boring suggestions for public censuring and crackpot theories about arrests.

That's a shame.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Crossbow

Sorry, but I quite disagree.

Imprisoning people for voting in a certain way in an election that is legally required (in this case, the vote concerning the House election certification), is quite undemocratic.

Furthermore, I can think of one case where a sitting member of the House of Representatives was obviously involved in the Capitol insurrection and this person soon resigned his seat and he is now facing criminal charges.

Wasn't he a sitting STATE House legislator?

I think we have a unique situation here. A significant minority of the public were sucked into a cult and many, if not most of them are still in it. Where do you draw the line between storming the Capitol and encouraging the crowd on and perpetuating the lie the election was rigged? Seems like a continuum to me.

On a related note, the GOP is dragging their feet on Garland and other DoJ confirmations which to me looks like they are worried the AG is going to investigate GOP legislators' involvement with the insurrection. For example the cell phone calls during the Capitol riot might be very incriminating.

[Crossbow]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Wasn't he a sitting STATE House legislator?

I think we have a unique situation here. A significant minority of the public were sucked into a cult and many, if not most of them are still in it. Where do you draw the line between storming the Capitol and encouraging the crowd on and perpetuating the lie the election was rigged? Seems like a continuum to me.

On a related note, the GOP is dragging their feet on Garland and other DoJ confirmations which to me looks like they are worried the AG is going to investigate GOP legislators' involvement with the insurrection. For example the cell phone calls during the Capitol riot might be very incriminating.

You are quite correct!

The person in question was a sitting member of the West Virginia House of Delegates.

Sorry about that! My mistake.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Bull ****.

A significant minority of GOP legislators thought they should prevent Biden from being declared the winner of a legit election. They contributed to an insurrection against an election that was won by 9 million votes. It wasn't even close. It wasn't close in any of the state elections that were being contested.

Legit elections being those won by Democrats I suppose?

Nobody really thought they were going to somehow overturn the result of the election with the possible exception of the idiots involved in the January 6 riot. Just as none of the Democrats who voted against certifying the Ohio 2004 electors thought they were going to accomplish something. It was a grandstand play.

And really, on the highlighted? Biden won Georgia by 0.23 percentage points Arizona by 0.31 percentage points, Wisconsin by 0.63 percentage points. Your claim there is nearly as weak as the claim that Biden stole it.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Legit elections being those won by Democrats I suppose?

English translation of my post: the wider the vote gap the more unlikely it is to have been affected by cheating.

Originally Posted by Brainster

Nobody really thought they were going to somehow overturn the result of the election with the possible exception of the idiots involved in the January 6 riot. Just as none of the Democrats who voted against certifying the Ohio 2004 electors thought they were going to accomplish something. It was a grandstand play.

You're not making a case at all for your BS equivalence. As for nobody thought... like hell. A significant number in the GOP thought they could pull it off. They've said so and they are still clinging to the nonsense.

Look at it on a scale from the number of Republicans that had hope Birtherism was going to result in Obama's election being nullified to Trump's saturation telling his cultists he is the legit POTUS and all they have to do is stop Biden so Trump can be declared the winner.

Forbes: 17 States [AGs] Agree The Supreme Court Should Overturn Biden’s Win

This wasn't Orly Taitz on a mission.

Originally Posted by Brainster

And really, on the highlighted? Biden won Georgia by 0.23 percentage points Arizona by 0.31 percentage points, Wisconsin by 0.63 percentage points. Your claim there is nearly as weak as the claim that Biden stole it.

Changing the stats to the numbers that look the smallest doesn't change the number of votes Biden won by. You're not fooling anyone here.

[Venom]

Originally Posted by ChristianProgressive

Examples: Josh Hawley needs to be drug right off the Senate floor in handcuffs and perp-walked right out the front door of the Capitol. Speaker Pelosi needs to invoke the 14th Amendment and kick out all 130-odd GOPpers who still voted to not certify the election results. And these terrorists who are out on bail and going on vacations need to be rounded up and put in GITMO.

Biden and the Democrats are still treating Jan 6 as a mere riot or a political disagreement, when they should be treating it as Treason and Sedition.

Huh? Why thouhg.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Changing the stats to the numbers that look the smallest doesn't change the number of votes Biden won by. You're not fooling anyone here.

I sincerely hope your work does not involve mathematics or even arithmetic. I suppose you would like me to point out that Biden won by TEN THOUSAND votes in Arizona, a huge margin in a state where there were only three point four million votes cast.