3 ms·
>Democrats sort of gasped and said, ‘They can’t do that.’ And then they realized there was absolutely nothing they could do about it. Because it's within the S
by readflaggedcomm 5y ago
>Democrats sort of gasped and said, ‘They can’t do that.’ And then they realized there was absolutely nothing they could do about it.
Because it's within the Senate's power, as he notes. Calling it "theft" is disingenuous. Using it as a pattern for future "theft" is especially strange when presidential elections have already been decided in the House.
- pfisch 5y agoThere is no time when the outcome of a presidential election was set aside based on "fraud" with no meaningful evidence of fraud. An event like that would most likely shatter the country and probably end democracy.
- pc86 5y agoIf you're going to make comments like "end democracy," which is pretty inflammatory and hyperbolic, you should probably have an example or two of what you think will happen that will truly end American democracy?
- chrchang523 5y agoIt is worth noting here that the 1876 election was substantially worse than recent events, and US democracy survived that.
- pfisch 5y agoBut in that election there was very clear evidence of fraud, and a compromise was reached.
- pfisch 5y agoIn that event I think many states and congress would've refused to recognize the executive branch and from there things would've quickly spun out of control.
- readflaggedcomm 5y agoI don't see the connection to my comment on his mischaracterization of the Senate's power to refuse SC nominations.