The Angry Violent Left

[ZRod]

1 hour ago, Archy1221 said:

But you said  earlier “ when you go around fear mongering and threatening to violate the constitution”.

Reads like you were saying Hawley was threatening to violate the Constitution by objecting to certification.  I am asking how based on the statement you made.   Seems you know if you are willing to put it in writing.   If I am wrong, I apologize in advance.  

Answer those questions and you'll have your answer as to how it violates state's rights and the Constitution which the GOP claims to love. I'll save you the time...

 

It's all spelled out in the Constitution that states are in charge of running their own election process locally or federally, certifying it, and divvying up the electoral votes. 

 

There is no legitimate reason for any of these house members to object to the vote. That's why even Mitch McConnell himself is telling them not to do it. In the 2004 case the Congress Person and Senator objected to the votes of their OWN state. Not someone else's. And they did not seek to overturn the results of the election but draw attention to voting issues.

[knapplc]

 

Quote

 

Police: Protesters outside Sen. Hawley home were ‘peaceful’

Protesters who gathered outside the Virginia home of Republican Sen. Josh Hawley Monday evening were peaceful and they left when police explained they were violating local picketing laws, police said Tuesday. The Missouri senator claimed on Twitter that the group had been engaged in “leftwing violence.”

 

Officers were called to Hawley's home in Vienna, a Washington suburb, home around 7:45 p.m. after someone reported that there were “people protesting in front of the house.” Officers who responded to the scene found that the “people were peaceful,” said Master Police Officer Juan Vazquez, a spokesman for the Town of Vienna Police Department.

 

The demonstrators said they went to Hawley's home because he said he would object when Congress convenes Wednesday to affirm Joe Biden’s election victory.

 

Vazquez said the protesters had been violating several laws, including a Virginia code about picketing in front of a house, a town ordinance about making noise in front of a home and a littering code. But he said the officers explained the violations and “everyone just left.” 

 

“There were no issues, no arrests,” he said. “We didn’t think it was that big of a deal.”

 

Hawley accused the group of vandalism and threats against his family.

 

“Tonight while I was in Missouri, Antifa scumbags came to our place in DC and threatened my wife and newborn daughter, who can’t travel,” Hawley wrote on Twitter. “They screamed threats, vandalized, and tried to pound open our door. Let me be clear: My family & I will not be intimidated.”

 

But the group, ShutdownDC, posted a nearly hour-long video that showed about a dozen protesters arriving at Hawley’s home, chanting and shouting through a megaphone, walking up to his doorstep, waving signs and writing on the sidewalk with chalk.

 

The video shows the group meeting in a nearby parking lot, discussing how they plan to protest and chant in front of his home and then shows them walking about two blocks to his home. Outside the home, they lit candles, chanted through megaphones and held signs that read, “Respect the votes. Trump lost!” and “You don’t have the votes!”

 

The activists also said they were leaving a copy of the U.S. Constitution on Hawley’s doorstep before a group of three people walk up to the stoop.

 

At one point in the video, police arrive at the home and one officer can be heard asking, “Can we maybe quiet down until we have a supervisor out here?” At least three officers can be seen standing on the sidewalk in front of Hawley’s home.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well. Isn't this awkward. 

 

[ZRod]

36 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

 

Nevermind

[Archy1221]

18 minutes ago, ZRod said:

Answer those questions and you'll have your answer as to how it violates state's rights and the Constitution which the GOP claims to love. I'll save you the time...

 

It's all spelled out in the Constitution that states are in charge of running their own election process locally or federally, certifying it, and divvying up the electoral votes. 

 

There is no legitimate reason for any of these house members to object to the vote. That's why even Mitch McConnell himself is telling them not to do it. In the 2004 case the Congress Person and Senator objected to the votes of their OWN state. Not someone else's. And they did not seek to overturn the results of the election but draw attention to voting issues.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.com/amp/news/2020/12/31/hawley-senate-republicans-453204
 

“I strongly believe there should be a full-fledged congressional investigation and also a slate of election integrity legislation,” Hawley added. “I intend to object during the certification process on January 6 in order to force these issues to the fore, and to point out the unprecedented failure of states like Pennsylvania to follow their own election laws and the unprecedented efforts of Big Tech corporations to interfere with the election.”
 

 

I understand elections are localized and how they work.  My question was, is objecting to the certification unconstitutional?  He lays out his reasons why here.  
 

Again, I feel I have to say this on every post but I don’t agree that this is the place to air his issues.  He should do it during regular order.  But is it unconstitutional to do so?  

[knapplc]

36 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Again, I feel I have to say this on every post but I don’t agree that this is the place to air his issues.  He should do it during regular order.  But is it unconstitutional to do so?  

 

Per other Republicans, yes.

 

 

[Ratt Mhule]

4 hours ago, Born N Bled Red said:

 

They don't have the numbers... no matter what they could have done it wouldn't have passed.

Thats not how you win in politics. You put pressure on the other side and use it against them. You force a vote and then people have to go on record of going against something that 82% of people are in favor of. Then you say “see, the republicans are the reason we didnt get this”. Thats how you win elections. Now the republicans can claim the dems held it up because there was no vote.

 

This is why dems lost 1000 seats under Obama. Because they have a defeatist attitude and suck at politics. Instead of fighting they say “theres nothing we can do”. And then the republicans hammer them over and over because they are ruthless and it works. 

[Archy1221]

5 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

Per other Republicans, yes.

 

 

This doesn’t address the question of whether he can legally object or not.  Doesn’t mean it has to go anywhere.  

[knapplc]

3 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

This doesn’t address the question of whether he can legally object or not.  Doesn’t mean it has to go anywhere.  

 

You asked if it was unconstitutional to do so.

 

52 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Again, I feel I have to say this on every post but I don’t agree that this is the place to air his issues.  He should do it during regular order.  But is it unconstitutional to do so?  

 

There is no constitutionally viable means to accomplish what he's attempting. 

 

Don't move the goalposts when you don't like the answer.   

[BigRedBuster]

4 minutes ago, knapplc said:

There is no constitutionally viable means to accomplish what he's attempting. 

 

Don't move the goalposts when you don't like the answer.   

 

Exactly.

 

Pence's job is to open the box, read the votes to be counted and record what they say.  Congress's job is to agree that that was done.

 

This entire issue is nothing more than grandstanding to appease Trump and his worshipers.  

 

So....yes, it is unconstitutional to vote that you don't accept the votes from the electoral college.

[Archy1221]

7 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

You asked if it was unconstitutional to do so.

 

 

There is no constitutionally viable means to accomplish what he's attempting. 

 

Don't move the goalposts when you don't like the answer.   

I’m not moving the goalposts.  You are providing an answer to a question I didn’t ask.   I believe this is the fourth election since 2000 where there have been objectors in the House and now this one includes a Senator.  Is it unconstitutional to object, thereby forcing a two hour debate on election issues?   Others

here have said or insinuated that it is.  

 

A mob of people put a copy of the constitution on his doorstep while yelling for an hour insinuating he is violating the constitution.

 

[Born N Bled Red]

24 minutes ago, Frott Scost said:

Thats not how you win in politics. You put pressure on the other side and use it against them. You force a vote and then people have to go on record of going against something that 82% of people are in favor of. Then you say “see, the republicans are the reason we didnt get this”. Thats how you win elections. Now the republicans can claim the dems held it up because there was no vote.

 

This is why dems lost 1000 seats under Obama. Because they have a defeatist attitude and suck at politics. Instead of fighting they say “theres nothing we can do”. And then the republicans hammer them over and over because they are ruthless and it works. 

 

Might've worked back in the day. In these days, gerrymandering has made house seats safe. And misinformation campaigns like Fox News are now considered legitimate news sources that tell the voter exactly what they want to hear even if its an outright lie. You're looking for accountability. There is none. That is why McConnell, Graham, Cruz and the rest are still in office. 

 

The dems did force a vote. They passed a clean $2,000 bill, with no riders. McConnell and the republican Senate refused to bring it to the floor for a vote. Could they have withheld votes on the veto override? Perhaps, but then that would have only strengthened the "Dems hate the military narrative."  

[knapplc]

"Mob"

 

[knapplc]

 

[Enhance]

https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article248281190.html

 

Quote

Missouri Republican Sen. Josh Hawley claimed on Twitter Monday night that his family faced vandalism and threats of violence during a protest outside of their northern Virginia home, but video posted by activists and a description from local police don’t match his account.

 

Mr. Hawley's claims of vandalism and threats of violence are, so far, as factually substantive as the flying spaghetti monster. The likely truth here is that he's upset about what happened and is using it as an opportunity to exaggerate the situation and criticize the left. If he wants to be taken seriously then he should provide proof of his allegations.

 

Police found that the activists were not in violation of any of the things Hawley claimed. So, it's germane as a conversation piece, but it is absolutely not evidence of an 'angry, violent left.'

[knapplc]

I've seen speculation that there's planned right-wing violence after the election is certified and they're going to use instances like the "mob that attacked Hawley's wife and child" as justification for their own actions.