OldLady
Diamond Member
- Nov 16, 2015
- 69,568
- 19,600
- 2,220
NC, the fact that Congress's rules don't allow 12 hours of debate on each objection has nothing to do with what happened. I watched the 2 hours of debate on AZ and PA. Some House members voiced objections but they didn't have a senator who signed on. So I'm not sure how you can say it stopped the objections.Thanks for that. I've hunted but can't find that any senators formally signed a letter objecting to the votes in NV, WI, or MI. Plenty of House members, but they need a senator, in writing. The only ones that had that when the Congress convened on Jan 6th were PA, AZ and GA, from what I can tell.Actually, I watched the House object to Arizona and Pennsylvania both for the full two hours. They didn't finish until after 3 am. The senator who had initially objected to Georgia backed out, meaning the House members never got a chance to speak on it. That was all I saw tabled. One senator.It was the last opportunity to do something about that stolen election......and as soon as Congress got back to work they tabled their objections and rubber-stamped the election
I get so sick of your constant lies slipped into your rants.
You're misrepresenting what happened just as much as you're accusing him of doing. It wasn't just 1 senator who withdrew his objection, and 1 state that was tabled. It was numerous senators and house reps, resulting in the objections to GA, WI, MI and NV failing to take place.
The net effect of what happened that day was that no debate was had in congress with regard to any anomolies in the election. Irrelevant of outcome from the debates that conveniently ened up not happening, it could have been an honest expression of people's desire to prevent this from hapening in the future and to offer other alternatives. Examples would be talking about the state laws that were abused and encouraging people to look at the source of the issues, the legislative body, and the constitution can be used to support that position. That debate, consequently, did not come up.
Theoretically, there would have been roughly twelve hours of debate. Two hours for each item, most times going longer than that just because of the process itself. The clock doesn't run whe nthey change speakers, for instance. Anyone experienced in observing the process should understand this, but I offer it as a courtesy for th casual passer-by. Basically they were looking at around fifteen hours of debate before the events too place. At that point they had only gone over two items.
By the time all of the shenanigans had taken place, they weren't gonna move forward. And then if anyone had a problem with it, they were labeled the bad guy and told they were supporting monsters, get him off the tweeter, get him off the facebook, shut it down, never give him a podium.
There's more to say about it. Just reading the trivialization of the situation in the couple of postings quoted here reminded me of it.
The concerns about the voting process are valid to look at in the state legislatures where voting laws and rules are established, and I'm sure many already have. There is always room for improvement.