- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Jamie Raskin another j6 crybully won’t certify election
Posted on 11/5/24 at 10:15 am to Screaming Viking
Posted on 11/5/24 at 10:15 am to Screaming Viking
quote:
How about paying off college loans?
The Biden admin did not violate the Supreme Court ruling in creating a different regulation/policy based in a completely separate law.
This post was edited on 11/5/24 at 10:16 am
1
Posted on 11/5/24 at 10:20 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
As posted, Raskin has not "qualified" ANY situation in which he would certify. That is the point.
Wrong
quote:
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the House Oversight Committee ranking member and former Jan. 6 committee member who objected to Trump electors in 2017, told Axios in an interview that if Trump "won a free, fair and honest election, then we would obviously accept it."
He said he would only fight certification IF a specific circumstance (fraud) was found to occur. That's a qualified position, not an absolute one.
Posted on 11/5/24 at 10:20 am to LSUpsychWARD
That sounds awfully insurrectiony
Posted on 11/5/24 at 10:23 am to LSUpsychWARD
He's had practice at this...already did this in 2016
My blue-mind executive leadership in 2020 stated that our corporate PAC won't support anyone trust failed to certify Biden's election. Raskin receives funding from us, but I'm sure it's different now
My blue-mind executive leadership in 2020 stated that our corporate PAC won't support anyone trust failed to certify Biden's election. Raskin receives funding from us, but I'm sure it's different now
Posted on 11/5/24 at 10:30 am to LSUpsychWARD
For real?
This is old. Old. OLD.
It was said before the SCOTUS made their immunity ruling for Trump.
They blocked the ability of the VP to not certify an election, because they were afraid Pense would side with Trump. (Boy, did THAT Bite them in the backside!)
Why are you guys letting them keep bringing this up?
Yes, it shows their mentality, and what they wanna do.
And how low they'd sink to do it.
But this... Replaying this... Is sending a bad message.
This is old. Old. OLD.
It was said before the SCOTUS made their immunity ruling for Trump.
They blocked the ability of the VP to not certify an election, because they were afraid Pense would side with Trump. (Boy, did THAT Bite them in the backside!)
Why are you guys letting them keep bringing this up?
Yes, it shows their mentality, and what they wanna do.
And how low they'd sink to do it.
But this... Replaying this... Is sending a bad message.
This post was edited on 11/5/24 at 10:31 am
Posted on 11/5/24 at 10:33 am to LSUpsychWARD
Bury him at the bottom with the sodomites.
Posted on 11/5/24 at 10:53 am to lake chuck fan
quote:
Seriously, please explain. I've read different ideas about this, but that if it happens the House would vote on it. Then I read something about it would then go to Vance.... ?????
The Senate vote would only be if there is a tie, Chuck.
And in this case, the VP is not considered President of the Senate. So VP cannot act as Tiebreaker. Senate would have to continue voting over and over until there is no tie.
SFP has addressed the congressional side of the rulings, so there's also that.
Posted on 11/5/24 at 10:55 am to SlowFlowPro
Why are you here? Shouldn’t you be in line to cast your vote for Kamablah?
Posted on 11/5/24 at 10:57 am to AlwysATgr
My Lord! please stop engaging SFP.
Posted on 11/5/24 at 11:00 am to GRTiger
quote:
I can't find anything corroborating this as an actual quote.
Today of all days is when you don't trust anything without a source.
Exactly
Posted on 11/5/24 at 11:09 am to LSUpsychWARD
[quote]I googled “certify election” just to see who’s reported on this and of course every link is about how Trump and MAGA electorates wont certify… Thank god Elon bought Twitter.[/quote
So you couldn’t find where he said this ANYWHERE else but you believe it to be true because somebody posted it on X???
So you couldn’t find where he said this ANYWHERE else but you believe it to be true because somebody posted it on X???
Posted on 11/5/24 at 11:13 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
know nothing about the amendment but my default is typically a No because our amendment system is clown shoes.
Due diligence sir. The Dems are working especially hard this year to get the wording on the ballots to be misleading/deceptive.
Our amendment to outlaw Ranked Choice Voting, had very little to describe what it was, here in MO. I'm scared of how many people may vote against it out of not understanding.
This post was edited on 11/5/24 at 11:14 am
Posted on 11/5/24 at 11:16 am to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
What would you be looking to protest?
My mind goes to the conservative Dems who don't want Kamala, or Trump.
But that's just me.
Posted on 11/5/24 at 11:17 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:bullshite!
He said he would only fight certification IF a specific circumstance (fraud) was found to occur.
He objected to certification of Trump electors in 2017 without evidence. He says Trump will "interfere with the process, ... manipulating electoral college counts in Nebraska ... manipulating the vote count in Georgia ... imposing other kinds of impediments," any of which will lead to Raskin (once again) fighting certification regardless of actual facts.
Posted on 11/5/24 at 11:21 am to Screaming Viking
quote:
this is what I love about you, SFP. legally, you are dead on balls accurate. However, you seem to forget that criminals do not care about the law. and make no mistake, democrats do not care about the law when it comes to DJT. This has been proven over and over again in real life.
you have a very rosy outlook on mankind.
They don't limit it to just 45. They don't care about the rules, the laws, or the constitution. Period.
Except when it gives them something to false flag, or project about.
Posted on 11/5/24 at 12:11 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
He said he would only fight certification IF a specific circumstance (fraud) was found to occur.
The funny thing is, that’s all Trump said leading up to 2020. And there were actual election concerns wrt Covid back then that panned out, unlike now.
He was nailed to the fricking cross over it. There were certainly no 37 page SFP threads defending Trump back then.
Posted on 11/5/24 at 12:39 pm to LSUpsychWARD
Karl Marx playbook, i’ve said it all along, these suck f&cks will not relinquish power without brute force. that may have to happen
Posted on 11/5/24 at 12:47 pm to LSUpsychWARD
The biggest pos in DC
Posted on 11/5/24 at 3:20 pm to SlowFlowPro
So they created a law to circumvent a SC decision….you convinced me!
Page 10 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News