can we credit or blame Pence for this presidency?

[notmyfault2020]

can we credit or blame Pence for this presidency?

 

[Rambunctious]

I think it was Pence all along that was leaking white house information to the media... I think he is the nameless guy that said "we are here to make sure Trump won't get the nation destroyed so don't worry"...

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

No.

 

[BackAgain]

FFS. He declined to do an act he determined to be unauthorized by the Constitution. I happen to agree with him on that call. But, right or wrong, other than that, he was a loyalist during the Trump years.

And we know this is true because the left wing propaganda ministry media vilified Pence virtually every day of the Trump Administration. Not to the same degree that they tried to impact Trump. But pretty savagely all the same.

 

[hjmick]

The only one to blame is Trump. A shitty candidate lost to what many perceived as a less shitty candidate. Just like 2016.

The truth is, they were both (all three, actually) shitty candidates.

 

[notmyfault2020]

I think it was Pence all along that was leaking white house information to the media... I think he is the nameless guy that said "we are here to make sure Trump won't get the nation destroyed so don't worry"...

I didn't hear of anyone saying that but I wouldn't at all be surprised it was Pancetorn

 

[notmyfault2020]

FFS. He declined to do an act he determined to be unauthorized by the Constitution. I happen to agree with him on that call. But, right or wrong, other than that, he was a loyalist during the Trump years.

And we know this is true because the left wing propaganda ministry media vilified Pence virtually every day of the Trump Administration. Not to the same degree that they tried to impact Trump. But pretty savagely all the same.

yeh, the left vilified Pantstorn until he made the decision to act in the stead of the STATES who have the authority given them by the Constitution to do their elector ballots. When it was apparent that 7 states had not come up with one but two conflicting slates of ballots.. It was THEY who should have corrected the problem, not him

But when he did that, the left liked him a little more. Now they probably don't.. the everyday Ds anyhow.. due to

$6 gas
$10 milk

all bc of his selfish, un-Christian (IMO) decision

etc.........

 

[BackAgain]

yeh, the left vilified Pantstorn until he made the decision to act in the stead of the STATES who have the authority given them by the Constitution to do their elector ballots. When it was apparent that 7 states had not come up with one but two conflicting slates of ballots.. It was THEY who should have corrected the problem, not him

But when he did that, the left liked him a little more. Now they probably don't.. the everyday Ds anyhow.. due to

$6 gas
$10 milk

all bc of his selfish, un-Christian (IMO) decision

etc.........

His decision was more selfless than selfish. And it probably more affirmed his faith than otherwise since he honored an oath he had taken.

 

[notmyfault2020]

His decision was more selfless than selfish. And it probably more affirmed his faith than otherwise since he honored an oath he had taken.

no, it didn't but I give up trying to convince people--or you anyhow

 

[BackAgain]

no, it didn't but I give up trying to convince people--or you anyhow

Yes. It did. And I am pleased that you give up. Because I’m sick of hearing that a guy who did what he felt he was obligated by oath to do was somehow wrong.

Pence won’t be getting my vote barring something utterly unforeseen. But that doesn’t mean he was anything less than fully faithful to his Oath in January 6.

 

[notmyfault2020]

Yes. It did. And I am pleased that you give up. Because I’m sick of hearing that a guy who did what he felt he was obligated by oath to do was somehow wrong.

Pence won’t be getting my vote barring something utterly unforeseen. But that doesn’t mean he was anything less than fully faithful to his Oath in January 6.

I have seen no proof of that

got any?

And frankly, I don't know what age you are but you seem rather.. for lack of a better word: naive. I mean, do you think it is even easy.. or even .. I want to use the word possible

OK.. some politicians do retain their Christian beliefs while in office.. um.. I think. I can't even recall the name of one.. But in any case, I just don't think Pants was one of them.. and why do you not give an argument (valid one) to what I say about how he should have sent the elector ballots back to the 7 conflicting -ballots states?

 

[BackAgain]

I have seen no proof of that

got any?

And frankly, I don't know what age you are but you seem rather.. for lack of a better word: naive. I mean, do you think it is even easy.. or even .. I want to use the word possible

OK.. some politicians do retain their Christian beliefs while in office.. um.. I think. I can't even recall the name of one.. But in any case, I just don't think Pants was one of them.. and why do you not give an argument (valid one) to what I say about how he should have sent the elector ballots back to the 7 conflicting -ballots states?

Your assertions all lack merit and support.

I don’t care if you assume (incorrectly) that I am naive. Since my contention is premised both on what the Constitution actually says AND on what Pence has said about his 1/6 decision, it follows that my contention is far better supported than yours is.

And adhering to an oath is a fair indicator of his fidelity to his faith. You’re free — of course — to cast aspersions on him and his behavior and his beliefs. But you don’t have any valid basis to do so.

I get it. You don’t like what he chose to do. And that’s even understandable. But it doesn’t make you right.

Since you have always come across like a genuinely nice and decent person, I don’t choose to allow this conversation to degenerate. So, with no disrespect to you intended, I’m just going to drop it here.

 

[notmyfault2020]

Your assertions all lack merit and support.

I don’t care if you assume (incorrectly) that I am naive. Since my contention is premised both on what the Constitution actually says AND on what Pence has said about his 1/6 decision, it follows that my contention is far better supported than yours is.

And adhering to an oath is a fair indicator of his fidelity to his faith. You’re free — of course — to cast aspersions on him and his behavior and his beliefs. But you don’t have any valid basis to do so.

I get it. You don’t like what he chose to do. And that’s even understandable. But it doesn’t make you right.

Since you have always come across like a genuinely nice and decent person, I don’t choose to allow this conversation to degenerate. So, with no disrespect to you intended, I’m just going to drop it here.

Well, before you drop it

I used the Constitution to back up my position. Pants alleges he did also. You believe pants.

I have seen no reason to change my views. I guess I was looking for you or someone to change my view because I do at times wonder if I got the Constitution right.. I will have to read it over again.. I used to have one.. can't seem tofind it.. I'll have to find it on the i-net.. But for 2 years now.. no information to persuade me that I am wrong.. ZIP, nada..

you saying that pants went by his oath or whatever.. that does not suffice for me. So I will go find the info somewhere..

Thanks for saying you think I am genuinely nice/decent.. you obviously don't know me well.. LOL

no, sometimes I really am that.. until I get ticked off.. but evne though, I am harmless.. (if one can handle words, anyhow)

 

[BackAgain]

Well, before you drop it

I used the Constitution to back up my position. Pants alleges he did also. You believe pants.

I have seen no reason to change my views. I guess I was looking for you or someone to change my view because I do at times wonder if I got the Constitution right.. I will have to read it over again.. I used to have one.. can't seem tofind it.. I'll have to find it on the i-net.. But for 2 years now.. no information to persuade me that I am wrong.. ZIP, nada..

you saying that pants went by his oath or whatever.. that does not suffice for me. So I will go find the info somewhere..

Thanks for saying you think I am genuinely nice/decent.. you obviously don't know me well.. LOL

no, sometimes I really am that.. until I get ticked off.. but evne though, I am harmless.. (if one can handle words, anyhow)

Sorry. The Constitution says what it says, and I quoted it. And it chose to use mandatory language at that.

The Constitution doesn’t say anything about any authority of the Vice President to reject the ballots submitted by the respective states.

Again: I don’t expect to persuade you just as you have not persuaded me. I speak in good faith and I presume you do, too. Therefore, I see little purpose being served in continuing to simply repeat what we’ve already said.

 

[notmyfault2020]

U.S. Constitution | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

The original text of the United States Constitution and its Amendments.

constitution.congress.gov

This is from Article II, Section 2, I think but not accurate because we do not vote for a VP this way anymore


The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.

Could it be both of us (Back Again and I) were .. well, not wrong?

I don't know if there is much else written in the Constitution about the issue of elector ballots. So it looks to me at this point like pants could have sent the questionable ballots back to the states for them to work out a single slate of elector votes, but there is no law saying he has to?

I'm just wondering if there is anything else in the Constitution that addresses the problem. Then you have prior decisions made by the Supreme Court concerning related matters.. you have prior presidential elections.

 

[Devils_Advocate]

No, blame the USSC seeing they rejected Trump argument and would not hear it.

I mean if you are going to blame someone why not them or how about Kemp instead?

 

[notmyfault2020]

The Constitution doesn’t say anything about any authority of the Vice President to reject the ballots submitted by the respective states.

That is true

but what if the ballots w ere questioned by the states involved? Why didn't pants trust the states to wrok things out? Why did he take it upon himself to just.. choose one slate over another?

And there could have been an audit. pants could have called for an audit.

 

[BackAgain]

That is true

but what if the ballots w ere questioned by the states involved? There could have been an audit. pants could have called for an audit.

The states didn’t. So Pence didn’t.

We ain’t talkin’ about “what if’s.” We are talking about what did actually take place.

 

[notmyfault2020]

The states didn’t. So Pence didn’t.

We ain’t talkin’ about “what if’s.” We are talking about what did actually take place.

well, once again I will have to do research. But it is my understanding and I have ever reason to believe this, that there were 7 states whose residents questioned the ballots that were sent by their states.. I am 99.9% certain that 7 states had 2 sets of elector ballots. Again, why was.. at least why was there no discussion of what to do? I realize I have missed a few things on this issue.. like.. maybe there was a discussion? And the inept news folks didn't report it?

In any case, it's time to review history and SCOTUS decisions on elections of the past.. because something similar happened in the 1800s. I just don't recall the details.

I just did some research.. or tried to.. hard to find info.. Why is that surprising?

 

[notmyfault2020]

After reading the Constitution

I still don't see why there was not a discussion as to what to do with the questioned ballots from electors..

i stand by my dislike and disrespect for Pants

I respect him as a human being as required by my Christian faith. But I don't think everyone who claims, as he does, to be Christian really is..

some are Christian just until it starts to hurt some and then.. Bye, Jesus.. nice knowin ya