The people who did that were being dumb.

That is perfectly legal if the State chooses to do that.

I love it when there has to be a stretch to make false equivalence whataboutism.

We saw a preview over the summer We know how far the dimocrats were willing to go.

That’s why they kept pretending the Republicans were the violent ones.

1 Like

ā€œ(D)umbā€? Why not insurrectionist?

Because random people thing on the internet is not the same as the President of the United States building a faulty legal case, using the power of his office, and mounting a nationwwide pressure campaign to get people to change the results of the election that he lost.

Until one can understand that people arguing in passing that the electors… who at the time in 2016 were not under legal obligation but they now are… should vote differently than their pledge… something that was not going to happen… than Trump team going as far as set up alternate slates of electors to create the illusion that there was indeed a conflict when there was none outside of their imaginations… if the difference can’t be understood then I have no more to say.

his move does nothing but expose the house even more for the partisan narrative driven swamp that it is. each party driving a party populist theme through narratives that are exclusive to their membership and meant to exclude any possibility of compromise through strict adherence to the narrative messaging. governance requires at least a small bit of pragmatism. neither side displays any in the house.