capitol riot

[Kat Kid]

The dems really saw roe overturned and went all in on Jan 6th. Look, the republicans are crooks. What are you going to do about it? Seems like hold televised hearings and have Liz Cheney be the face of it is the response. Good stuff.

That isn't what is happening at all, but Jan 6th is more important than Roe, anyway.

Oh I’m well aware many of you think that.

[Kat Kid]

The dems really saw roe overturned and went all in on Jan 6th.

They did not throw this all together in the past 1-2 months when Roe overturn was leaked let alone the past week when Roe was overturned.

There is a finite amount of time and the dems are spending almost all of it talking about Jan 6.

[catastrophe]

The dems really saw roe overturned and went all in on Jan 6th. Look, the republicans are crooks. What are you going to do about it? Seems like hold televised hearings and have Liz Cheney be the face of it is the response. Good stuff.

That isn't what is happening at all, but Jan 6th is more important than Roe, anyway.

Yes. Reasonable minds can disagree over whether the US Constitution protects the right to an abortion, but it’s pretty damn clear that when you’re voted out of office you need to step down and not encourage a violent mob to interfere with the electoral process. If we can’t agree on the latter then we’re completely mumped.

[Kat Kid]

The dems really saw roe overturned and went all in on Jan 6th. Look, the republicans are crooks. What are you going to do about it? Seems like hold televised hearings and have Liz Cheney be the face of it is the response. Good stuff.

That isn't what is happening at all, but Jan 6th is more important than Roe, anyway.

Yes. Reasonable minds can disagree over whether the US Constitution protects the right to an abortion, but it’s pretty damn clear that when you’re voted out of office you need to step down and not encourage a violent mob to interfere with the electoral process. If we can’t agree on the latter then we’re completely mumped.

It is very clear there is not anything approaching a consensus on that.

[chum1]

The dems really saw roe overturned and went all in on Jan 6th.

They did not throw this all together in the past 1-2 months when Roe overturn was leaked let alone the past week when Roe was overturned.

There is a finite amount of time and the dems are spending almost all of it talking about Jan 6.

I think they should both do Jan 6 hearings and also additional things they won't do.

[steve dave]

Hey guys, ya know, it's a complete #shitshow right now, but we've got to concentrate on Trump in order, to you know, get some got damn accountability going.

 

lmao

https://twitter.com/ingrahamangle/status/1541861045572075520

[CNS]

The dems really saw roe overturned and went all in on Jan 6th. Look, the republicans are crooks. What are you going to do about it? Seems like hold televised hearings and have Liz Cheney be the face of it is the response. Good stuff.

That isn't what is happening at all, but Jan 6th is more important than Roe, anyway.

Yes. Reasonable minds can disagree over whether the US Constitution protects the right to an abortion, but it’s pretty damn clear that when you’re voted out of office you need to step down and not encourage a violent mob to interfere with the electoral process. If we can’t agree on the latter then we’re completely mumped.

It is very clear there is not anything approaching a consensus on that.

That is correct.  The outcome of the Jan 6 hearings, and subsequent whatever, needs to be accountability for trump, and all involved, and then motivation for the implementation of new rules, protocol, etc that fill the loopholes that the loss of norms created.  We need to stop acting like all players involved recognize the same semi informal set of rules or plan to play by those rules.  We need to fill those gaps and write those rules in stone with consequences for deviation.  Not doing so will essentially be proof of concept and it will all but guarantee that elections will become farces.   What happens then?

Trump skating will lead to worse than trump and worse than jan 6. 

Unfortunately, I think we are incapable of the hard work needed. 

[catastrophe]

Wait are you guys saying we need to close a loophole in the Constitution about whether a person voted out of office needs to actually leave?

[Rage Against the McKee]

Wait are you guys saying we need to close a loophole in the Constitution about whether a person voted out of office needs to actually leave?

Yeah, otherwise this court would rule that he doesn't.

[CNS]

Wait are you guys saying we need to close a loophole in the Constitution about whether a person voted out of office needs to actually leave?

There is a really good Radio Lab podcast from back in the summer of 2015 where they interview a constitutional law expert about how the electoral college process works and what happens when the votes are counted and what happens when electors go to congress, etc.  They describe the whole process, then discuss a war game like scenario where they walked through the process of several what-if's when it comes to electors not voting with the state vote, what if VP won't count the electors, what's up with alternate electors, what governors can do about electors, etc.  They basically painted the exact picture that lead up to the idea of mike pence trying to do what they wanted mike pence to do.  It's worth a listen.  It was basically a blue print for what happened.  Ultimately it comes down to a gray area in the constitution that doesn't exactly say who counts the electoral vote, if that is even required, what happens if the person refuses to count them, etc.  The Radio Lab person said that ultimately it came down to power.  Who has the ability to force a resolution and she mentioned that it may all land on the military choosing to enforce orders from the pres or not.

Evidently, plenty of experts agree that Mike had the right to not declare a president and call for alternate electors who could then send the vote to the house, which votes on delegation(or something) which would have gave Trump the vote 26-24 at the time. 

It's interesting.

[Kat Kid]

The dems really saw roe overturned and went all in on Jan 6th. Look, the republicans are crooks. What are you going to do about it? Seems like hold televised hearings and have Liz Cheney be the face of it is the response. Good stuff.

That isn't what is happening at all, but Jan 6th is more important than Roe, anyway.

Yes. Reasonable minds can disagree over whether the US Constitution protects the right to an abortion, but it’s pretty damn clear that when you’re voted out of office you need to step down and not encourage a violent mob to interfere with the electoral process. If we can’t agree on the latter then we’re completely mumped.

It is very clear there is not anything approaching a consensus on that.

That is correct.  The outcome of the Jan 6 hearings, and subsequent whatever, needs to be accountability for trump, and all involved, and then motivation for the implementation of new rules, protocol, etc that fill the loopholes that the loss of norms created.  We need to stop acting like all players involved recognize the same semi informal set of rules or plan to play by those rules.  We need to fill those gaps and write those rules in stone with consequences for deviation.  Not doing so will essentially be proof of concept and it will all but guarantee that elections will become farces.   What happens then?

Trump skating will lead to worse than trump and worse than jan 6. 

Unfortunately, I think we are incapable of the hard work needed.

Look buddy, I hate to tell you this. But accountability isn’t something our country does anymore.  The rough ridin' sheriff that sat by and watched as kids got killed is just waiting things out in his house and he and all the rest of the cops are still employed. If you think this is the thing that finally catches trump and does anything to him you are delusional.

[CNS]

The dems really saw roe overturned and went all in on Jan 6th. Look, the republicans are crooks. What are you going to do about it? Seems like hold televised hearings and have Liz Cheney be the face of it is the response. Good stuff.

That isn't what is happening at all, but Jan 6th is more important than Roe, anyway.

Yes. Reasonable minds can disagree over whether the US Constitution protects the right to an abortion, but it’s pretty damn clear that when you’re voted out of office you need to step down and not encourage a violent mob to interfere with the electoral process. If we can’t agree on the latter then we’re completely mumped.

It is very clear there is not anything approaching a consensus on that.

That is correct.  The outcome of the Jan 6 hearings, and subsequent whatever, needs to be accountability for trump, and all involved, and then motivation for the implementation of new rules, protocol, etc that fill the loopholes that the loss of norms created.  We need to stop acting like all players involved recognize the same semi informal set of rules or plan to play by those rules.  We need to fill those gaps and write those rules in stone with consequences for deviation.  Not doing so will essentially be proof of concept and it will all but guarantee that elections will become farces.   What happens then?

Trump skating will lead to worse than trump and worse than jan 6. 

Unfortunately, I think we are incapable of the hard work needed.

Look buddy, I hate to tell you this. But accountability isn’t something our country does anymore.  The rough ridin' sheriff that sat by and watched as kids got killed is just waiting things out in his house and he and all the rest of the cops are still employed. If you think this is the thing that finally catches trump and does anything to him you are delusional.

OK, I understand. 

I am not saying this is going to happen.  I am saying it is needed.

I am somewhat a nihilist about it myself.

[catastrophe]

Wait are you guys saying we need to close a loophole in the Constitution about whether a person voted out of office needs to actually leave?

There is a really good Radio Lab podcast from back in the summer of 2015 where they interview a constitutional law expert about how the electoral college process works and what happens when the votes are counted and what happens when electors go to congress, etc.  They describe the whole process, then discuss a war game like scenario where they walked through the process of several what-if's when it comes to electors not voting with the state vote, what if VP won't count the electors, what's up with alternate electors, what governors can do about electors, etc.  They basically painted the exact picture that lead up to the idea of mike pence trying to do what they wanted mike pence to do.  It's worth a listen.  It was basically a blue print for what happened.  Ultimately it comes down to a gray area in the constitution that doesn't exactly say who counts the electoral vote, if that is even required, what happens if the person refuses to count them, etc.  The Radio Lab person said that ultimately it came down to power.  Who has the ability to force a resolution and she mentioned that it may all land on the military choosing to enforce orders from the pres or not.

Evidently, plenty of experts agree that Mike had the right to not declare a president and call for alternate electors who could then send the vote to the house, which votes on delegation(or something) which would have gave Trump the vote 26-24 at the time. 

It's interesting.

It truly is a ridiculous system, but I believe many states have separately addressed the “rogue elector” issue so that at least that piece of it wouldn’t happen.

All the more reason to move to popular vote.

[CNS]

Wait are you guys saying we need to close a loophole in the Constitution about whether a person voted out of office needs to actually leave?

There is a really good Radio Lab podcast from back in the summer of 2015 where they interview a constitutional law expert about how the electoral college process works and what happens when the votes are counted and what happens when electors go to congress, etc.  They describe the whole process, then discuss a war game like scenario where they walked through the process of several what-if's when it comes to electors not voting with the state vote, what if VP won't count the electors, what's up with alternate electors, what governors can do about electors, etc.  They basically painted the exact picture that lead up to the idea of mike pence trying to do what they wanted mike pence to do.  It's worth a listen.  It was basically a blue print for what happened.  Ultimately it comes down to a gray area in the constitution that doesn't exactly say who counts the electoral vote, if that is even required, what happens if the person refuses to count them, etc.  The Radio Lab person said that ultimately it came down to power.  Who has the ability to force a resolution and she mentioned that it may all land on the military choosing to enforce orders from the pres or not.

Evidently, plenty of experts agree that Mike had the right to not declare a president and call for alternate electors who could then send the vote to the house, which votes on delegation(or something) which would have gave Trump the vote 26-24 at the time. 

It's interesting.

It truly is a ridiculous system, but I believe many states have separately addressed the “rogue elector” issue so that at least that piece of it wouldn’t happen.

All the more reason to move to popular vote.

I want electors to cease to exist.  Just take KS's 6 votes and divy up by percentage of ks votes.  No winner take all.  No dumbfuck actually needs to fly to DC and deliver them.  Other than that, I want the electoral college to remain.  IMO, if it ever ceased to exist, we would cease to matter to the ppl with the money and with the power.  All political interest and attempts to appease would be focused on the coasts.  KS would mean jack crap to the federal govt.

[chum1]

Let's go

https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1542280619039899653

[sys]

The dems really saw roe overturned and went all in on Jan 6th. Look, the republicans are crooks. What are you going to do about it? Seems like hold televised hearings and have Liz Cheney be the face of it is the response. Good stuff.

That isn't what is happening at all, but Jan 6th is more important than Roe, anyway.

vastly more important.

[Dugout DickStone]

Wait are you guys saying we need to close a loophole in the Constitution about whether a person voted out of office needs to actually leave?

Yeah, otherwise this court would rule that he doesn't.

And Thomas would throw in a pizzagate and Q reference in his concurrence

[MakeItRain]

The thinnest majority in the Senate you can have, means that anything like codifying roe is not going to happen. Even when Democrats had the supermajority for like 80 days they didn't have the votes to break the filibuster with it with the amount of Democratic Senators from Nebraska, Arkansas, North Dakota, etc. Republicans are bad actors here and have done a lot of damage no doubt but how democrats who don't get to hold power with anything but the slimiest majorities get the blame is beyond me. The SCOTUS was effectively stolen, Judiciary had over 130 vacancies in the last 2 years of Obama because McConnell made a gamble that payed off. His bad behavior was rewarded and as typical the Democrats get the blame.

The dems really saw roe overturned and went all in on Jan 6th. Look, the republicans are crooks. What are you going to do about it? Seems like hold televised hearings and have Liz Cheney be the face of it is the response. Good stuff.

Right, you just described all the norms Republicans are breaking. What have the democrats done in response?

Not a motherfucking thing

[sonofdaxjones]

Entities reading internal memo's and reports are now finding multiple entries of communications with SAA and his being warned as early as 46 days prior to 1/6 about possible issues at the Capital on 1/6.

Of course he's dead now, and dead men tell no tales.

U.S. Marshall's office warned as early as 12/23/20. 

Multiple weeks ahead of 1/6:  DHS/Marshall's office/DCMPD all warned the Capital. 

[chum1]

The dems really saw roe overturned and went all in on Jan 6th. Look, the republicans are crooks. What are you going to do about it? Seems like hold televised hearings and have Liz Cheney be the face of it is the response. Good stuff.

That isn't what is happening at all, but Jan 6th is more important than Roe, anyway.

vastly more important.

The Democrats sure as hell aren't delivering on Medicare For All and other things I want. Maybe an oppressive right wing dictator will. It's worth a shot!

[star seed 7]

Entities reading internal memo's and reports are now finding multiple entries of communications with SAA and his being warned as early as 46 days prior to 1/6 about possible issues at the Capital on 1/6.

Of course he's dead now, and dead men tell no tales.

U.S. Marshall's office warned as early as 12/23/20. 

Multiple weeks ahead of 1/6:  DHS/Marshall's office/DCMPD all warned the Capital.

What's your theory dax? You didn't answer last time I asked.

[Dugout DickStone]

Entities reading internal memo's and reports are now finding multiple entries of communications with SAA and his being warned as early as 46 days prior to 1/6 about possible issues at the Capital on 1/6.

Of course he's dead now, and dead men tell no tales.

U.S. Marshall's office warned as early as 12/23/20. 

Multiple weeks ahead of 1/6:  DHS/Marshall's office/DCMPD all warned the Capital.

What's your theory dax? You didn't answer last time I asked.

The feds knew the selfie grannies and tourists were coming so therefore.....?

[sonofdaxjones]

Entities reading internal memo's and reports are now finding multiple entries of communications with SAA and his being warned as early as 46 days prior to 1/6 about possible issues at the Capital on 1/6.

Of course he's dead now, and dead men tell no tales.

U.S. Marshall's office warned as early as 12/23/20. 

Multiple weeks ahead of 1/6:  DHS/Marshall's office/DCMPD all warned the Capital.

What's your theory dax? You didn't answer last time I asked.

I need to have a theory about a guy dying?

Why didn’t Nancy’s police force act appropriately?

[sonofdaxjones]

Entities reading internal memo's and reports are now finding multiple entries of communications with SAA and his being warned as early as 46 days prior to 1/6 about possible issues at the Capital on 1/6.

Of course he's dead now, and dead men tell no tales.

U.S. Marshall's office warned as early as 12/23/20. 

Multiple weeks ahead of 1/6:  DHS/Marshall's office/DCMPD all warned the Capital.

What's your theory dax? You didn't answer last time I asked.

The feds knew the selfie grannies and tourists were coming so therefore.....?

Apparently Nancy’s police force failed to act appropriately.

[Dugout DickStone]

Entities reading internal memo's and reports are now finding multiple entries of communications with SAA and his being warned as early as 46 days prior to 1/6 about possible issues at the Capital on 1/6.

Of course he's dead now, and dead men tell no tales.

U.S. Marshall's office warned as early as 12/23/20. 

Multiple weeks ahead of 1/6:  DHS/Marshall's office/DCMPD all warned the Capital.

What's your theory dax? You didn't answer last time I asked.

The feds knew the selfie grannies and tourists were coming so therefore.....?

Apparently Nancy’s police force failed to act appropriately.

Agreed.  They should have whipped those lardos ass.