The issue is he's an idiot. He conflates overturning an election with rejecting the electors of a fraudulent election. Yes there isn't a way to overturn an election because that would imply a body of people can choose to flip the result of the election. It does not prevent them from rejecting the results of the election only to hold their own in the house and senate.
It's not being overturned, its that the result of said election cannot in good faith be verified or certified at the federal level due to the overwhelming amount of evidence provided at the objection. Rejecting the results of an election is not overturning it, legally speaking. It's rejecting it on the grounds that it cannot be reliably proven. No winner is declared when an election is rejected. It's a core fundamental difference and misunderstanding that I believe he really needs to understand. Reading and critical thinking is hard, but it shouldn't be a roadblock for someone who is elected, it's ultimately his choice but all choices have consequences and everyone here should let him know that much as well.
tldr;
Overturning an election and rejecting an election are different things, and conflating the two is a morons take to avoid responsibility of a decision.
The mere fact he has the option to object is proof he has absolutely no fucking idea what he's talking about. If it wasn't possible you wouldn't have the ability to fucking vote on it.
Not really, you can believe there is election fraud and think objecting to the election is overturning it.
It's a fundamental lack of understanding and there are two scenarios that someone being completely consistent can be in.
Believes fraud occurred but an objection is a direct attempt to overturn the result of the election. As in, the election went to biden fraudulently, but every level up to the federal verified and certified it so it's overturning at their point.
Believes fraud occurred but to object is to act in bad faith due to it being verified and certified at the local and state levels.
Believes no fraud occurred and to object is unreasonable due to it being verified and certified at the local and state levels. Pressure from a mob of people isn't sufficient to sway opinion.
Sure we can argue how he doesn't believe fraud exists, but I think his statement more forwardly states that he won't object because he doesn't see a viable or constitutional reason to. To sway his opinion it must be made clear that rejecting the results is not overturning the election. It is just an outright rejection of the elections in the states which have evidence of fraud presented at the objection. There is no declared winner when the results are rejected because there was no one elected as the election was rejected. So there must be a new election to determine the winner. Tim clearly has his opinions but I think they are a deeply flawed interpretation of the English language to conflate reject meaning to overturn.
If the people who elected him demand an objection then it is his duty to object. If he goes against the will of his own people then his own people need to hold him accountable in whatever way they deem fit under the constitution, with the same prejudice that Tim used to refuse to object. He should definitely know that much.
Edit:
Keep in mind he's also black, which means his tribe will vote for him regardless.
I mean, sure. That much is irrelevant when it comes to his poor understanding of English.
TELL HIM AND OTHERS SPECIFICALLY TO MEET WITH A SENATOR/REPRESENTATIVE OF THE SAME STATE TO MUTUALLY SIGN LETTERS OBJECTING TO MICHIGAN, PENNSYLVANIA, ARIZONA, GEORGIA AND WISCONSIN'S ELECTORAL VOTES INDIVIDUALLY.
Why bother with a Senate at all. Just give McCONnell 50 votes, and call it a day. A Senator that cannot think for himself is just a puppet. What good a Senators if they simply follow their marching orders.
Rudy should quit saying "overturn". There is nothing to overturn. Any election result that is certified based on fraud is itself fraudulent. Therefore it is already null and void. OF COURSE you reject that.
The election was won by Trump. He doesn't want to overturn it. He wants to confirm the correct result.
He will say that it is a matter for the State to fix their elections.
Ah, so if I cheat and run against you it's your fault that your elections were rigged against you?
Not for the Federal to fix State problems. That is not their place barring some extreme situation where the State is overrun by Communists.
The federal government must ensure the republic stands under the constitution.
Every one of these States are run by Republicans.
The elections were not certified by those republicans, they were certified by authority delegated to the SoS and Governors.
Every one of these States are run by Republican State Legislatures.
Correct, and they were stupid to delegate running and certifying the elections to the same branch of power. They should have held the keys for certification not the SoS or Governors. The rules they set out for elections were violated and fraudulently certified by those that rigged the election.
I actually spoke with some poor kid, too. He told me "Tim Scott doesn't think objecting is constitutional." I started laughing and told him it is PART OF the constitution. Also told him I'll vote for his Democrat challenger from here on out. Fucking ridiculous.
Anyway, worth calling since someone is apparently answering right now.
What is the point in voting on something if you're only allowed to vote aye? Then that's not a vote. People don't seem to get that.
It was the same thing as certifying the results. Canvassers were being told it was their job to certify, rather than to examine the facts and make a determination to certify or not.
Same, Charleston county here. Said Tim Scott or Lindsey Graham will never get my vote no matter who the opponent is if they do not challenge the electorate. Cordial conversation, nice lady taking the message.
will do! imagine being "undecided" in saving the presidency of someone who singlehandedly caused your victory against Joe "look i'm a moderate dem" Cunningham.
Did it. Answered on first ring! Made mistake of giving my real name. Oh well, I've lived a good life
Hijacking your comment for visibility.
The issue is he's an idiot. He conflates overturning an election with rejecting the electors of a fraudulent election. Yes there isn't a way to overturn an election because that would imply a body of people can choose to flip the result of the election. It does not prevent them from rejecting the results of the election only to hold their own in the house and senate.
It's not being overturned, its that the result of said election cannot in good faith be verified or certified at the federal level due to the overwhelming amount of evidence provided at the objection. Rejecting the results of an election is not overturning it, legally speaking. It's rejecting it on the grounds that it cannot be reliably proven. No winner is declared when an election is rejected. It's a core fundamental difference and misunderstanding that I believe he really needs to understand. Reading and critical thinking is hard, but it shouldn't be a roadblock for someone who is elected, it's ultimately his choice but all choices have consequences and everyone here should let him know that much as well.
tldr; Overturning an election and rejecting an election are different things, and conflating the two is a morons take to avoid responsibility of a decision.
The mere fact he has the option to object is proof he has absolutely no fucking idea what he's talking about. If it wasn't possible you wouldn't have the ability to fucking vote on it.
Even simpler is this:
He doesn't believe there was election fraud. Which means he's an idiot.
Keep in mind he's also black, which means his tribe will vote for him regardless.
Simpler still: he's not an idiot. He's compromised.
Tim Scott is fine with the Democrats literally fucking him over on police reform while Trump had his back. Hold the line PEDES.
Not really, you can believe there is election fraud and think objecting to the election is overturning it.
It's a fundamental lack of understanding and there are two scenarios that someone being completely consistent can be in.
Believes fraud occurred but an objection is a direct attempt to overturn the result of the election. As in, the election went to biden fraudulently, but every level up to the federal verified and certified it so it's overturning at their point.
Believes fraud occurred but to object is to act in bad faith due to it being verified and certified at the local and state levels.
Believes no fraud occurred and to object is unreasonable due to it being verified and certified at the local and state levels. Pressure from a mob of people isn't sufficient to sway opinion.
Sure we can argue how he doesn't believe fraud exists, but I think his statement more forwardly states that he won't object because he doesn't see a viable or constitutional reason to. To sway his opinion it must be made clear that rejecting the results is not overturning the election. It is just an outright rejection of the elections in the states which have evidence of fraud presented at the objection. There is no declared winner when the results are rejected because there was no one elected as the election was rejected. So there must be a new election to determine the winner. Tim clearly has his opinions but I think they are a deeply flawed interpretation of the English language to conflate reject meaning to overturn.
If the people who elected him demand an objection then it is his duty to object. If he goes against the will of his own people then his own people need to hold him accountable in whatever way they deem fit under the constitution, with the same prejudice that Tim used to refuse to object. He should definitely know that much.
Edit:
I mean, sure. That much is irrelevant when it comes to his poor understanding of English.
Further hijacking for this.
TELL HIM AND OTHERS SPECIFICALLY TO MEET WITH A SENATOR/REPRESENTATIVE OF THE SAME STATE TO MUTUALLY SIGN LETTERS OBJECTING TO MICHIGAN, PENNSYLVANIA, ARIZONA, GEORGIA AND WISCONSIN'S ELECTORAL VOTES INDIVIDUALLY.
Why bother with a Senate at all. Just give McCONnell 50 votes, and call it a day. A Senator that cannot think for himself is just a puppet. What good a Senators if they simply follow their marching orders.
Great comment and accurate. A biden election victory cannot currently be proven and certified with any confidence
Yes.
Rudy should quit saying "overturn". There is nothing to overturn. Any election result that is certified based on fraud is itself fraudulent. Therefore it is already null and void. OF COURSE you reject that.
The election was won by Trump. He doesn't want to overturn it. He wants to confirm the correct result.
He will say that it is a matter for the State to fix their elections.
Not for the Federal to fix State problems. That is not their place barring some extreme situation where the State is overrun by Communists.
Every one of these States are run by Republicans.
Every one of these States are run by Republican State Legislatures.
Ah, so if I cheat and run against you it's your fault that your elections were rigged against you?
The federal government must ensure the republic stands under the constitution.
The elections were not certified by those republicans, they were certified by authority delegated to the SoS and Governors.
Correct, and they were stupid to delegate running and certifying the elections to the same branch of power. They should have held the keys for certification not the SoS or Governors. The rules they set out for elections were violated and fraudulently certified by those that rigged the election.
The kid didn't even ask for my name. Could be because I'm not in SC.
Probably didn't even bother forwarding my comments.
Never be afraid of giving your name.
JOHN HANCOCK
Did I say I was afraid? I gave it to them, "Fabius." If that IS your real name.
i always give my real name & zip code. And then I say i will do anything in my power to support his opponent in the next primary.
I actually spoke with some poor kid, too. He told me "Tim Scott doesn't think objecting is constitutional." I started laughing and told him it is PART OF the constitution. Also told him I'll vote for his Democrat challenger from here on out. Fucking ridiculous.
Anyway, worth calling since someone is apparently answering right now.
What is the point in voting on something if you're only allowed to vote aye? Then that's not a vote. People don't seem to get that.
It was the same thing as certifying the results. Canvassers were being told it was their job to certify, rather than to examine the facts and make a determination to certify or not.
I got the same thing when i called just now. Told her that was somoly wrong. Its baked directly into the constitution.
Do you have to give any personal identifying info when you call or do they just listen to what you have to say?
Same, Charleston county here. Said Tim Scott or Lindsey Graham will never get my vote no matter who the opponent is if they do not challenge the electorate. Cordial conversation, nice lady taking the message.
Charleston county here- where the hell is Mace?
will do! imagine being "undecided" in saving the presidency of someone who singlehandedly caused your victory against Joe "look i'm a moderate dem" Cunningham.
Called, left a nice but pointed message to reconsider.