3 ms·

The individual members of Congress aren’t the President. You can form whatever opinion you like on the merits of the objections, but the end result is the same

by cwhiz 6y ago

The individual members of Congress aren’t the President. You can form whatever opinion you like on the merits of the objections, but the end result is the same. In three separate elections this century there were Democrats in Congress who voted against certifying the election results. You can hand wave it away as much as you like. The facts will remain. It’s on the voting record.

greggturkington 6y ago
The individual members of Congress voted based on the president's actions. > there were Democrats in Congress who voted against certifying the election results Right, and one of them was a two hour debate. You'd be gullible enough compare that to not supporting a campaign of bad-faith lawsuits across states that were clearly not based in voter fraud (and usually dismissed as a result). The most specific thing they have in common is "members of Congress voted."
dragonwriter 6y ago
> In three separate elections this century there were Democrats in Congress who voted against certifying the election results. No, there weren’t. The only votes on objections to an electoral tally prior to 2020 in this century (counting 2000 as “in this century”, to avoid ambiguity) were in 2004. In 2000 and 2016 there were no votes, because votes only occur after the count is stopped for debate on an objection, which only occurs when a legal objection is filed, which (1) must be in writing, and (2) must be signed by both a Senator and a member of the House of Representatives. In 2000 and 2016 some members of the House engaged in floor stunts proposing objections which were not signed by a member of a Senate, which resulted in no debate or vote as they were ruled out of order because, well, they were out of order. > You can hand wave it away as much as you like. The facts will remain. It’s on the voting record. Yeah, the voting record is against you here, so you probably want to stop waving your hands in its general direction.

by cwhiz 6y ago

greggturkington 6y ago

The individual members of Congress voted based on the president's actions. > there were Democrats in Congress who voted against certifying the election results Right, and one of them was a two hour debate. You'd be gullible enough compare that to not supporting a campaign of bad-faith lawsuits across states that were clearly not based in voter fraud (and usually dismissed as a result). The most specific thing they have in common is "members of Congress voted."

dragonwriter 6y ago

> In three separate elections this century there were Democrats in Congress who voted against certifying the election results. No, there weren’t. The only votes on objections to an electoral tally prior to 2020 in this century (counting 2000 as “in this century”, to avoid ambiguity) were in 2004. In 2000 and 2016 there were no votes, because votes only occur after the count is stopped for debate on an objection, which only occurs when a legal objection is filed, which (1) must be in writing, and (2) must be signed by both a Senator and a member of the House of Representatives. In 2000 and 2016 some members of the House engaged in floor stunts proposing objections which were not signed by a member of a Senate, which resulted in no debate or vote as they were ruled out of order because, well, they were out of order. > You can hand wave it away as much as you like. The facts will remain. It’s on the voting record. Yeah, the voting record is against you here, so you probably want to stop waving your hands in its general direction.