Ideas in how to lower the temperature

[Shaya E]

If you don't mind, I have another question to ask.

What did Ted Cruz do wrong? Isn't the very fact that the law asks for the legislature's approval for the vote count an indication that they have a right to disapprove?

He has the right to disapprove based on whether he believes something was wrong. People believe he was disapproving for other reasons.

It's like a driving test administrator who fails you for reasons unrelated to your driving ability, the law gave them the right to fail you but they are doing so for reasons not intended by the law.

[PlatinumGuy]

If you don't mind, I have another question to ask.

What did Ted Cruz do wrong? Isn't the very fact that the law asks for the legislature's approval for the vote count an indication that they have a right to disapprove?

Their problem with Ted Cruz is more about the fact he made himself the poster boy for encouraging the Big Lie, but to the point, in theory Congress only has discretion to decide if the State sent the electors or not, and if there are procedural flaws with the electors themselves.

How the State chose their electors is outside the purview of Congress, and is up to the State and it's government branches, with minimal Federal Judicial oversight to the extent it infringes on the Constitution.

Finally, whether you agree or not, those who take issue with Ted Cruz are doing so because they believe the allegations of fraud were sufficiently debunked in the 64 court cases they lost and State audits/recounts that they can't possibly be argued in good faith, and are instead an extremely dangerous political ploy. If you watch Mitch McConnell's speech, that will give you a good idea.

[aygart]

He has the right to disapprove based on whether he believes something was wrong. People believe he was disapproving for other reasons.

It's like a driving test administrator who fails you for reasons unrelated to your driving ability, the law gave them the right to fail you but they are doing so for reasons not intended by the law.

What is your opinion of those who objected in 2016, 2004, and 2000?

[YitzyS]

He has the right to disapprove based on whether he believes something was wrong. People believe he was disapproving for other reasons.

It's like a driving test administrator who fails you for reasons unrelated to your driving ability, the law gave them the right to fail you but they are doing so for reasons not intended by the law.

Is that what he's being accused of? To me it sounds like the very fact that he objected is grounds to cancel him and stop donating to him.

[aygart]

Their problem with Ted Cruz is more about the fact he made himself the poster boy for encouraging the Big Lie, but to the point, in theory Congress only has discretion to decide if the State sent the electors or not, and if there are procedural flaws with the electors themselves.

How the State chose their electors is outside the purview of Congress, and is up to the State and it's government branches, with minimal Federal Judicial oversight to the extent it infringes on the Constitution.

Finally, whether you agree or not, those who take issue with Ted Cruz are doing so because they believe the allegations of fraud were sufficiently debunked in the 64 court cases they lost and State audits/recounts that they can't possibly be argued in good faith, and are instead an extremely dangerous political ploy. If you watch Mitch McConnell's speech, that will give you a good idea.

What is your opinion of those who objected in 2016, 2004, and 2000?

[PlatinumGuy]

What is your opinion of those who objected in 2016, 2004, and 2000?

I'm not educated on topic. It is very wrong but the damage done is much greater when one side of the debate is attempting in the literal sense to stay in office illegally.

Driving in the opposite lane is very bad, but it makes a big difference if the road is empty or it isn't and somebody is killed. A similar action can have very different consequences.

[YitzyS]

Their problem with Ted Cruz is more about the fact he made himself the poster boy for encouraging the Big Lie,

They seem to be canceling all the senators who objected, not just Cruz.

but to the point, in theory Congress only has discretion to decide if the State sent the electors or not, and if there are procedural flaws with the electors themselves.
How the State chose their electors is outside the purview of Congress, and is up to the State and it's government branches, with minimal Federal Judicial oversight to the extent it infringes on the Constitution.

I never heard that, but it can perhaps be argued that Cruz, as a constitutional expert, disagrees with this.

Finally, whether you agree or not, those who take issue with Ted Cruz are doing so because they believe the allegations of fraud were sufficiently debunked in the 64 court cases they lost and State audits/recounts that they can't possibly be argued in good faith, and are instead an extremely dangerous political ploy. If you watch Mitch McConnell's speech, that will give you a good idea.

This is the most solid point IMO.

[aygart]

I'm not educated on topic. It is very wrong but the damage done is much greater when one side of the debate is attempting in the literal sense to stay in office illegally.

Driving in the opposite lane is very bad, but it makes a big difference if the road is empty or it isn't and somebody is killed. A similar action can have very different consequences.

What are you deluding yourself into thinking they were trying to do in 2016?

Ironically, Biden was pretty vocally against it at that time, to his credit.

[Shaya E]

What is your opinion of those who objected in 2016, 2004, and 2000?

I wasn't saying my opinion, I was explaining the problem others have with him. But if you actually think about what I wrote you'll realize that it's a matter of public opinion why the senator is objecting. Asking about other cases is, following my analogy from earlier, like asking what my opinion us on other testers who failed people, in every situation my assumption will be different.

[whYME]

What is your opinion of those who objected in 2016, 2004, and 2000?

Don't you know politics in the US first started with Trump getting elected. He suddenly appeared out of nowhere and won the election. Before that everything was peaches and roses. There was nothing that happened in the previous years that brought about his rise. In fact, there was basically nothing happening for the next four years and when Trump lost in November all of a sudden out of the blue the country just went crazy.

[PlatinumGuy]

They seem to be canceling all the senators who objected, not just Cruz.

The scrutiny is definitely focusing on Hawley and Cruz.

 

What are you deluding yourself into thinking they were trying to do in 2016?

Seriously? In 2020, half of the members of this forum were convinced after Nov 5 DJT would some how stay in office past Jan 20. Nothing like that happened in 2016. Perhaps there was an attempt, but it wasn't anything like 2020, nobody thought HRC would take office.

[aygart]

The scrutiny is definitely focusing on Hawley and Cruz.

 Seriously? In 2020, half of the members of this forum were convinced after Nov 5 DJT would some how stay in office past Jan 20. Nothing like that happened in 2016. Perhaps there was an attempt, but it wasn't anything like 2020, nobody thought HRC would take office.

Revisionist history

And definitely not applicable to 2000 even after SCOTUS ruling.

[whYME]

I'm not educated on topic. It is very wrong but the damage done is much greater when one side of the debate is attempting in the literal sense to stay in office illegally. 

Maybe now educate us on the damages done by spending four years trying to undo the 2016 election and remove Trump...

[PlatinumGuy]

Maybe now educate us on the damages done by spending four years trying to undo the 2016 election and remove Trump...

Nothing illegitimate about impeachment, it is just as constitutional as elections.

[whYME]

Nothing illegal about impeachment, it is just as constitutional as elections.

Nothing illegal about objecting to the electors, it is just as constitutional as elections.

[PlatinumGuy]

Nothing illegal about objecting to the electors, it is just as constitutional as elections.

So in your opinion, every 4 years Congress can decide which electors they like, which they don't, and appoint the President accordingly?

[PlatinumGuy]

I never heard that, but it can perhaps be argued that Cruz, as a constitutional expert, disagrees with this.

Cruz definitely knows the law better than me, but the fact that he did something doesn't prove he thought it was legitimate. I eat cake even though I know I shouldn't.

[aygart]

So in your opinion, every 4 years Congress can decide which electors they like, which they don't, and appoint the President accordingly?

So the dems were doing something illegal those years?

[whYME]

So in your opinion, every 4 years Congress can decide which electors they like, which they don't, and appoint the President accordingly?

So in your opinion, whenever they want, Congress can decide which presidents they like, which they don't, and remove the President accordingly?

[skyguy918]

What is your opinion of those who objected in 2016, 2004, and 2000?

Revisionist history

I think this whole blowback against R pols for objecting on its own is ridiculous, so I'm certainly not defending it in the absolute sense - but none of your examples are comparable to 2020. DJT is the sitting president and therefore technically in control of the various levers of power. He has not officially conceded even to this day (CMIIW). The objections you refer to in previous years were largely ceremonial - the loser had conceded already (even Gore), and none of those losers were the sitting President. Hard to argue that this time, when Trump has been going on for weeks about all the ways the R establishment should be handing him the second term, it was only ceremonial. That may in fact have been the intent of some of them, but it was foolish given the circumstances.