Trump announces new tranche of endorsements

The Hill ^ | March 5, 2021 | Tal Axelrod

[9YearLurker]

This means nothing with the election fraud not only in place but additionally getting pushed through Congress on steroids.

[TexasGurl24]

Oh, the Soros sucking weasel who is encouraging people to vote for Marxist Democrats is angry.

[mrsmith]

” Soros sucking weasel”
LOL!

But that is so accurate now.
Maybe you should look at what you’re doing.

[Stentor]

I had a tranche once.

Peroxide and fish antibiotics for the infections and topical vitamin E for the healing.

[Alberta's Child]

Yes -- you've posted that before here on FR.

We get it. You're a Democrat.

[Dr. Franklin]

What a lie. What a self-destroying lie.

What a deflection! Don't address the arguments being made. Just deflect with comments like "stick to your “I’m smarter than Trump!” spiel." That does nothing to advance discussion of the issues.

[Dr. Franklin]

Once those electoral votes were certified, Congress was powerless to do anything on January 6th other than accept them.

No, our Congress wasn't powerless to stop the fraud. Congress established a commission to examine the certifications from the Hayes-Tilden election in 1877 and Sen. Cruz proposed that Congress follow that precedent. Congress had the power but refused to act. Nothing in the U.S. Constitution states that governors certify presidential electors. The Constitution does, however, guarantee a Republican form of government, which fraudulent elections are not. Ergo, Congress has the power and the obligation to reject fraudulent or illegal elections of presidential electors. History will judge these clowns harshly. You should stop defending the corruption.

[Dr. Franklin]

Gee...that sounds pretty negative rather than supportive of either Trump or the Party.

With what factually do you disagree? That Congress has a responsibility to guarantee a Republican form of government, or do you think the Republican party should just ignore the Constitution? To quote W, "It's just a g.d. piece of paper!", right?

[caww]

You’re assuming that Congress is a reflection of the people and there to serve the people and this nation, therefore accountable according to the Constitution......which it’s not any longer, this you know.

[central_va]

We get it. You are a boot licking RINO.

[Alberta's Child]

1. The commission you cited was established to address some unique circumstances, including states that submitted multiples slates of electors as well as a whole bunch of former Confederate states that were under Federal control during the Reconstruction period after the Civil War. If we had even just ONE competing slate of electors in 2020 it would have been much easier to make the case that we really did have a contested election by constitutional standards.

2. You are right that nothing in the U.S. Constitution states that governors certify presidential electors. However, the Constitution explicitly states that the electors are determined in the manner established by each state's legislature. If a state legislature adopted a provision whereby the governor must certify the state's presidential electors -- or even appoint the electors based on his own personal preference -- then there's nothing unconstitutional about it, and there's nothing any other state can do about it.

3. I have no interest in defending the 2020 election fiasco. I posted many times here on FR that this disaster should have been fixed BEFORE Election Day ... and in the absence of that, it should have been fixed BEFORE the certification of the presidential electors in mid-December.

[Alberta's Child]

I’m not even a Republican, dude (as I’ve posted many times here on FR). LOL.

[frog in a pot]

Please cite me one thing from this narrative that says anything about "considering" and "debating" electoral votes.[etc]
There several instances one could cite in the entirety of the 12th but even in the small portion you present you might be surprised to note reference to the House "choosing". Inherent in any body of politicians "choosing" are the functions of "considering" and "debating". Even if one were to argue the politicians were not to alter electoral votes the politicians were indeed charged with considering what was to be done with the remnants of those votes that failed.

Act of 1887
You present the Act seemingly as support for your argument although just some 70 years ago Congress provided additional provisions with 3USC15. The latter statute clearly argues against your view so you claim it is likely unconstitutional.

One can imagine you are either intellectually dishonest or you have a learning disability; if the latter please excuse me. In any event, you can have the last word, we are done.

[antceecee]

Your first sentence shows your ignorance.

[Alberta's Child]

I'm not going to sit here and argue endlessly with you, but I'm going to call you out on one flat-out deception you've posted there.

The "choosing" referenced in the 12th Amendment has nothing to do with Congress selecting the President after the electoral vote certificates have been counted and one candidate has a majority of the EVs. It specifically applies to a case where NO candidate has a majority of the EVs.