Printable View
Maybe it's because the question included the description of Johnson as an election denier for doing the same thing Jeffries and countless other Democrats did after the 2016 election. The double standard is annoying enough coming from partisans but doubly so when the supposedly non-partisan media does it.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
Countless other democrats voted to not certify the 2016 election? I guess I don’t remember that. Probably because it didn’t ****ing happen.
https://www.politifact.com/factcheck...ntial-electio/Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
From Alan's source info:
So even Alan's article agrees that the circumstances and the potential outcome in the 2020 certification were entirely different. While in all instances, it seems those in Congress had the legal ability to challenge/not certify, for the Democrats, it was a protest that they knew was going nowhere, as the Democratic contenders had all acknowledged their loss (due to the electoral college only - they DID win the popular vote, unlike Trump). Those who voted to not certify, after Jan 6th, knew that what they were doing was perpetrating a fraud, and was an attempt to subvert our democracy and electoral process. And "countless" d(D)emocrats? that really seems a stretch.Quote:
Some Democrats filed objections in 2001, 2005, and in 2017, following elections that Republicans won. But the circumstances were different from those in 2021. In the earlier years, the losing candidate had already conceded. After the 2020 election, Trump was trying to overturn the election, and he had met with some House Republicans to further that goal. In the previous years, not even the losing candidates were seeking to overturn the results. The objections were more symbolic than the 2021 effort to block the election results. In 2021, the objections could have overturned the presidential election.
You have to dig a little deeper to get the full gist of this leg of the conversation. The incident mentioned in post #2220 where Johnson was labeled as an election denier had to do with an amicus brief he signed requesting judicial review of election results in 4 states following the 2020 election. The basis for the requested review was that those 4 states changed the voting rules without the approval of their state legislatures, which was a fact and a valid reason to request review in order to ensure election integrity.Quote:
Originally Posted by early morning
As for the claim that Democrats did not vote to object to certification of the election, which we know is demonstrably false and is the basis of my factcheck, whether or not the loser had conceded the race is irrelevant. The relevant issue is that those Republican objections to the 2020 election were disallowed by the President of the Senate (Mike Pence) just as the Democratic objections to the 2016 election were disallowed by the then President of the Senate (Joe Biden).
Unfortunately, since the latest election, everything less than tacit acceptance of reported results has been labeled as election denialism by the media and even "attempts to overthrow the government" by partisans. Of course, those descriptions will change the next time a Republican wins the Presidency.
And yet the entire republican party apparatus, including 3/4 of the republicans in the house who voted not to certify the election in 2020, were involved in the effort to overthrow the government. I'm sorry you lack the capacity to see the difference between that and waht happened in 2016. You can keep going Alan but literally no one outside the maga bubble buys the BS.
And even today the new traitor in charge of the house can't answer simple questions about the 2020 election. It doesn't give me much confidence that he will make any effort to uphold his constitutional duty come January 2025.
LOL, I wonder if the ability to debate using facts will die out completely with we boomers?Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
Apparently it already has with diehard magas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
I saw two examples of that in the evening news. It seems that Trump is still running the GOP even out of office. No one wants to be on the receiving end of Trump's wrath regardless of transparency to the American public . I was at least entertained by his fine for violating his gag order for the second time. After his testimony the judge said Trump was not a credible witness, even under oath.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
I’ve attempted to share here a solid legal scholar’s opinions about what’s going on with trump legally. Alan has ignored those posts entirely. Iris lily has poo poo’d them because she doesn’t like Marcy’s attitude. All I can conclude from that is that they don’t actually give an eff about actually engaging. Not surprising since Alan has made it quite clear that he doesn’t think a Republican politician can ever do anything wrong and iris has made it clear that she’s not interested in details and finds them tiresome if they don’t fit her preconceived notion of the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogar