Just had a random musing about what would happen if enough Americans stood guard outside the Capitol next January 6th - in much the same way the Patriot Guard Riders protect funerals from Westboro nutjobs[1,2] - as a barrier between Congress certifying the election and the Q/MAGA folks looking for a redo.
Might be a pretty decent show of force in support of our democracy.
Just like we use the abbreviations B.C. for "before Christ" and A.D. "anno domini"(in the year of our Lord), I think for politics sake it will be convenient to use B.T. for "Before Trump" and T.E. for "Trump Era" when talking about the GOP.
In an ideal world with a B.T. GOP, Liz Cheney would've been a default choice to be the minority leader/Speaker of the House. She has solid conservative principles, and articulates them firmly and articulately. Kevin McCarthy wouldn't have stood a chance, as a weak, unprincipled leader. In a more sane GOP, McCarthy would've gotten the boot.
What is interesting about the Georgia runoff Senate races was that Trump's post-election behavior turned out to hurt his own base turnout even more than right leaning voters in the suburbs who viewed Trump more skeptically. I mean you had 2 months of a defeated, lame duck President throwing a hissy fit about how the election was rigged and stolen from him. Add on top of that, nutjobs like Lin Wood and a few others telling Trump supporters not to vote in the runoffs because they were rigged, just like the Presidential election. From what I remember reading from expert political analysts(Nate Silver, Dave Wasserman, Larry Sabato) right leaning voters in Cobb and Gwinnett county who voted GOP downticket but voted Biden or 3rd party for POTUS, did generally turn out and vote for Loeffler and Perdue. But the MAGA base weren't turning out to vote in the numbers they ordinarily would've done. They were most likely convinced that the elections were "rigged" and fake, so they didn't bother voting. It's funny how many in the MAGA base blame Never-Trumpers/Trump-Skeptics for the loss, when it was their own side that helped make Chuck Schumer the majority leader.
Along those lines, I really felt the GOP going along with a 1-6 nonpartisan or bipartisan commission would've helped the party clean house, and would help them in the 2022 and possibly the 2024 elections. I felt it would've convinced a lot of non-hardened Trump supporters who got deceived by election trutherism, that they've been lied to all along by Trump and his sycophants. The sooner that the GOP can expose and shame the toxic elements in the party(i.e. Josh Hawley, Mo Brooks, Gaetz, MTG, etc), the easier it will be to rid themselves of that. But if there is no 1-6 commission to expose the wrongdoers, too many more people will peddle this "Stop the Steal" nonsense and depress center-right turnout in the elections, not to mention turning off swing voters.
So that is why I feel that Liz Cheney is actually doing the GOP a big favor. I think that even this House Democratic 1-6 commission with Cheney in it may publicly expose the bad actors in the Republican party to the extent that the GOP base may no longer believe that the 2020 and subsequent elections are "rigged", improving their chances at winning elections. Trump-skeptical conservatives might fare better in this environment in a GOP primary. Regardless of what happens though, the cleansing will be good for the Republican party, and more importantly, good for the country. It will be a message that there will be zero-tolerance for insurrection.
Why the heck is there a vote if congress members are not expected to raise questions or trigger a debate? What gives Pelosi moral authority to reject commission appointees when she, herself, voted to reject George Bush's election in 2004? You and Liz Cheney need to find a better role model.
Actually, Nancy Pelosi wasn't among the 31 Democrats in the House of Reps who voted to object to the counting of the electoral votes from the state of Ohio, which determined the winner. She actually voted no in objecting to the counting of the electoral votes from that state. Pelosi accepted the outcome of the Bush 43's reelection victory. Those 31 Democrats that objected were mostly among the furthest left of the 202 congressional Democrats in 2005. In the Senate, it was Barbara Boxer that voted to reject Ohio's EVs. Her reasons for doing so were absolutely asinine, and was a disgrace. She and the 31 House Dems who objected were butthurt and couldn't accept the fact that Bush 43 won legit. I've always found Boxer to be grating in many respects, and worse than Pelosi, IMO. Her successor, now Vice President Kamala Harris, for whatever faults she may have, is far more affable and reasonable than her predecessor. I may not agree with her philosophy, but I never had the disdain for her like I did for Boxer.
Is this a serious response? You have from Nov. till Jan 6th to "raise questions" your buddies did dozens of times in court and were laughed out at every stop. And Pelosi has all the authority she needs because its her commission, your side decided they didn't want any say in the matter when they rejected the deal presented to them in the Senate. Your whole statement is either wrong or asinine.
Agreed: there's no point in having a vote. The results of the Electoral College should just stand as is, without any need for Congress to do anything.
Or better yet: switch to a pure popular vote for the one national office that every voter gets a say, rather than a farkakte "elect the representatives that elect the POTUS".
It's a pretty big divide. You want it to read your way and I want it my way. There is no acceptable compromise that would give California, Illinois, New York and a few other states the power to run the country. The nation would never exist without states having ratified the constitution. My preference would be that the Federal government stick to national defense, international affairs, a narrow definition of what Constitutional Federal powers are and what the supreme court is empowered by the constitution to do. Give each state one vote to elect the president with any ties decided by Congress. There's a bit more but that would take several pages.
Just had a random musing about what would happen if enough Americans stood guard outside the Capitol next January 6th - in much the same way the Patriot Guard Riders protect funerals from Westboro nutjobs[1,2] - as a barrier between Congress certifying the election and the Q/MAGA folks looking for a redo.
Might be a pretty decent show of force in support of our democracy.
[1] https://jezebel.com/biker-gang-to-protect-maya-angelous-funeral-from-westbo-1584909762
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Guard_Riders
Just like we use the abbreviations B.C. for "before Christ" and A.D. "anno domini"(in the year of our Lord), I think for politics sake it will be convenient to use B.T. for "Before Trump" and T.E. for "Trump Era" when talking about the GOP.
In an ideal world with a B.T. GOP, Liz Cheney would've been a default choice to be the minority leader/Speaker of the House. She has solid conservative principles, and articulates them firmly and articulately. Kevin McCarthy wouldn't have stood a chance, as a weak, unprincipled leader. In a more sane GOP, McCarthy would've gotten the boot.
What is interesting about the Georgia runoff Senate races was that Trump's post-election behavior turned out to hurt his own base turnout even more than right leaning voters in the suburbs who viewed Trump more skeptically. I mean you had 2 months of a defeated, lame duck President throwing a hissy fit about how the election was rigged and stolen from him. Add on top of that, nutjobs like Lin Wood and a few others telling Trump supporters not to vote in the runoffs because they were rigged, just like the Presidential election. From what I remember reading from expert political analysts(Nate Silver, Dave Wasserman, Larry Sabato) right leaning voters in Cobb and Gwinnett county who voted GOP downticket but voted Biden or 3rd party for POTUS, did generally turn out and vote for Loeffler and Perdue. But the MAGA base weren't turning out to vote in the numbers they ordinarily would've done. They were most likely convinced that the elections were "rigged" and fake, so they didn't bother voting. It's funny how many in the MAGA base blame Never-Trumpers/Trump-Skeptics for the loss, when it was their own side that helped make Chuck Schumer the majority leader.
Along those lines, I really felt the GOP going along with a 1-6 nonpartisan or bipartisan commission would've helped the party clean house, and would help them in the 2022 and possibly the 2024 elections. I felt it would've convinced a lot of non-hardened Trump supporters who got deceived by election trutherism, that they've been lied to all along by Trump and his sycophants. The sooner that the GOP can expose and shame the toxic elements in the party(i.e. Josh Hawley, Mo Brooks, Gaetz, MTG, etc), the easier it will be to rid themselves of that. But if there is no 1-6 commission to expose the wrongdoers, too many more people will peddle this "Stop the Steal" nonsense and depress center-right turnout in the elections, not to mention turning off swing voters.
So that is why I feel that Liz Cheney is actually doing the GOP a big favor. I think that even this House Democratic 1-6 commission with Cheney in it may publicly expose the bad actors in the Republican party to the extent that the GOP base may no longer believe that the 2020 and subsequent elections are "rigged", improving their chances at winning elections. Trump-skeptical conservatives might fare better in this environment in a GOP primary. Regardless of what happens though, the cleansing will be good for the Republican party, and more importantly, good for the country. It will be a message that there will be zero-tolerance for insurrection.
Why the heck is there a vote if congress members are not expected to raise questions or trigger a debate? What gives Pelosi moral authority to reject commission appointees when she, herself, voted to reject George Bush's election in 2004? You and Liz Cheney need to find a better role model.
Actually, Nancy Pelosi wasn't among the 31 Democrats in the House of Reps who voted to object to the counting of the electoral votes from the state of Ohio, which determined the winner. She actually voted no in objecting to the counting of the electoral votes from that state. Pelosi accepted the outcome of the Bush 43's reelection victory. Those 31 Democrats that objected were mostly among the furthest left of the 202 congressional Democrats in 2005. In the Senate, it was Barbara Boxer that voted to reject Ohio's EVs. Her reasons for doing so were absolutely asinine, and was a disgrace. She and the 31 House Dems who objected were butthurt and couldn't accept the fact that Bush 43 won legit. I've always found Boxer to be grating in many respects, and worse than Pelosi, IMO. Her successor, now Vice President Kamala Harris, for whatever faults she may have, is far more affable and reasonable than her predecessor. I may not agree with her philosophy, but I never had the disdain for her like I did for Boxer.
Is this a serious response? You have from Nov. till Jan 6th to "raise questions" your buddies did dozens of times in court and were laughed out at every stop. And Pelosi has all the authority she needs because its her commission, your side decided they didn't want any say in the matter when they rejected the deal presented to them in the Senate. Your whole statement is either wrong or asinine.
Agreed: there's no point in having a vote. The results of the Electoral College should just stand as is, without any need for Congress to do anything.
Or better yet: switch to a pure popular vote for the one national office that every voter gets a say, rather than a farkakte "elect the representatives that elect the POTUS".
The states elect the President which is the constitutional way.
Used to be Senators were selected by legislators instead of popular vote. Things change.
Shouldn't have but you are correct. It's part the Constitution which will not see any more significant changes for a century or more.
Which is, in itself, absolutely ridiculous. Our Constitution isn't perfect, and the inability to come together to make updates is heinous.
It's a pretty big divide. You want it to read your way and I want it my way. There is no acceptable compromise that would give California, Illinois, New York and a few other states the power to run the country. The nation would never exist without states having ratified the constitution. My preference would be that the Federal government stick to national defense, international affairs, a narrow definition of what Constitutional Federal powers are and what the supreme court is empowered by the constitution to do. Give each state one vote to elect the president with any ties decided by Congress. There's a bit more but that would take several pages.