Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I read that article in The Atlantic yesterday, I think it was, and sent it to people I know. I thought it was such a spectacular editorial. Lol, after reading the article, a friend of mine posted on his timeline stating that Trump should face the harshest penalties for treason and the poor guy got put into FB jail!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nell Plotts
The definition of treason focuses on a specific enemy, SEDITION is what we are seeing.
It is neither treason, nor sedition, for a congressperson to use methods established for just that reason, to ask their fellow congressperson to engage in a two hour debate whether or not there were problems with a state’s or multiple states’ election.
Sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organisation, that tends toward rebellion against the established order.
They are using the procedures established, and previously used three times in the previous 25 years, by Congress for such purpose.
Treason is the crime of attacking a state authority to which one owes allegiance.
They are not attacking the state authority to which they owe allegiance, they believe what they are doing is trying to protect it.
Just because you don’t like what they are doing doesn’t make it illegal or wrong. I thought a Jones/Boxer’s actions in 2004 silly but I recognized their right to do so. It amounted to a two hour discussion AND ultimately more states using paper backup ballots in subsequent elections. So, in the end, I was glad they did it.
Look, it isn’t this election that the maneuver this time will change either, just like in 2004 it is a foregone conclusion that it will be a two debate with the measure defeated. What it will hopefully do is make some states clean up their elections in future elections.
But, please, all you folks calling for pitchforks and bonfires need to crack open some history books.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
It’s actually rather routine for the losing side within the House of Representatives to put up a symbolic fight over
Electoral College votes. It is far less common for the losing side of the Senate to do so.
And even less common to grandstand about it.
Yesterday, nearly 200 CEOs urged Congress to knock it off. Many of these CEOs and companies are GOP donors.
...Quotes from the time:
"Some may criticize our colleague from California for bringing us here for this brief debate. I thank her for doing that because it gives members an opportunity once again on a bipartisan basis to look at a challenge that we face not just in the last election in one State but in many States."
Senator Dick Durban, D-IL
Yes, but is there a difference in the intent of the "objectors"? As mentioned, the 2005 election had been conceded. Those objectors were not seeking to overturn the election in favor of their candidate. Can the same be said about those congress-folk who object tomorrow? If so, fine. If not, sedition would seem to be the proper term.
It’s actually rather routine for the losing side within the House of Representatives to put up a symbolic fight over
Electoral College votes. It is far less common for the losing side of the Senate to do so.
And even less common to grandstand about it.
Yesterday, nearly 200 CEOs urged Congress to knock it off. Many of these CEOs and companies are GOP donors.
Honestly, that just makes me hope they continue. It’s not the CEO’s that are upset with how the election was run, it is about 25M or so ordinary citizens. Surely you don’t think the opinions of 200 CEOs ought to matter more than the opinions of 25M+ of the little people? Everyone just needs to let the process play itself out.
Again, this has happened before - attempted 3 times, even taken to the second step once, in the last 20 years. What is the issue of wanting to point out there were problems? That many people no longer having faith in our election system IS a crisis. They deserve to feel that at least their congressperson heard their concern and tried to give voice to it.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
It is neither treason, nor sedition, for a congressperson to use methods established for just that reason, to ask their fellow congressperson to engage in a two hour debate whether or not there were problems with a state’s or multiple states’ election.
Sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organisation, that tends toward rebellion against the established order.
They are using the procedures established, and previously used three times in the previous 25 years, by Congress for such purpose.
Treason is the crime of attacking a state authority to which one owes allegiance.
They are not attacking the state authority to which they owe allegiance, they believe what they are doing is trying to protect it.
Just because you don’t like what they are doing doesn’t make it illegal or wrong. I thought a Jones/Boxer’s actions in 2004 silly but I recognized their right to do so. It amounted to a two hour discussion AND ultimately more states using paper backup ballots in subsequent elections. So, in the end, I was glad they did it.
Look, it isn’t this election that the maneuver this time will change either, just like in 2004 it is a foregone conclusion that it will be a two debate with the measure defeated. What it will hopefully do is make some states clean up their elections in future elections.
But, please, all you folks calling for pitchforks and bonfires need to crack open some history books.
When I saw you had posted, I knew it would be covered!
Yes, but is there a difference in the intent of the "objectors"? As mentioned, the 2005 election had been conceded. Those objectors were not seeking to overturn the election in favor of their candidate. Can the same be said about those congress-folk who object tomorrow? If so, fine. If not, sedition would seem to be the proper term.
Oh, please, they know exactly how this will play out. They will have their two hour debate, hope to wheedle a bipartisan commission or hearing into the problems with the 2020 election, and Biden’s election will be certified. Mitch McConnell has made it very clear Joe Biden is the next president, you can take that to the bank. They all know that too.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
How exactly is it a defense to say "the other side did it too"? It's not a defense. You're telling on yourselves. It's quite the false equivalency, however.
Also, if you read the article, you'd know that, at the times of these objections, Kerry had long since conceded. Clinton too, of course. When someone tried this nonsense in 2017, the Vice President presiding over the roll call said "It is over".
That was Biden putting an end to the objection in 2017, btw.
Exactly this.
I doubt any of the Trump folks will acknowledge any of what you just said.
Yes, but is there a difference in the intent of the "objectors"? As mentioned, the 2005 election had been conceded. Those objectors were not seeking to overturn the election in favor of their candidate. Can the same be said about those congress-folk who object tomorrow? If so, fine. If not, sedition would seem to be the proper term.
Read this article in the Atlantic or at least, scroll down to the last paragraph, which tells it like it is. The author proposes that these republicans be shunned from all public forums, for their acts of what can very well, be called sedition. The 140 representatives and about 10 in the Senate, have joined to try to draw out the last struggles of a tyrant, a little bit longer. They have disgraced themselves and should never be taken seriously again.
It has reached the state levels, with Republicans refusing to seat the Democrat who won a state senate seat. The Pennsylvania constitution does not give the Senate authority to overthrow an election, but they are trying anyway. It has already been thrown out by the state courts, so now they are trying in federal court.
In other news, Wisconsin Republicans are still working to overthrow the Biden election.
Apparently a portion of the Republican Party thinks any election that is not a rubber stamp is invalid. Once they have power, they think they deserve to keep it no matter what the voters say.
How exactly is it a defense to say "the other side did it too"? It's not a defense. You're telling on yourselves. It's quite the false equivalency, however.
Also, if you read the article, you'd know that, at the times of these objections, Kerry had long since conceded. Clinton too, of course. When someone tried this nonsense in 2017, the Vice President presiding over the roll call said "It is over".
That was Biden putting an end to the objection in 2017, btw.
When Rep. Pramila Jayapal couldn’t get a senator to sign on he told her it was over. It has to have a senator to support it, no matter how many representatives sign on. Same thing happened in 2001. In 2004 it wasn’t over because Senator Boxer signed supported it - so they had their two hour debate and then certified it, just like will happen tomorrow.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
Moderator - Diabetes and Kentucky (including Lexington & Louisville)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
