The Paul faggots fucking kill me. Every single time he shits on us people defend his ass. If he wasn't such a raging faggot we would have been able to repeal the ACA and finish the wall.
Rand's argument was that the state legislature's certified the vote, and we shouldn't set a precedent where Congress can overturn elections. Pretty solid reasoning if you ask me, even if I do disagree with the result.
But even according to the States' own laws and judgments certification is just a "magisterial" procedure that means nothing. It does not mean they verified their counts, only that they went through certain legal motions. And in AZ, GA, and WI they out and out denied legal contestations and remedies. In those places and more they denied basic due processes via substantive audits or other verification measures. Certification is a rubber stamp. Acceding to it is just handing the entire election over to Election Officials in counties and Sec of State offices, which is completely unconstitutional.
No, it is not solid in the least bit. When a state conducts it’s election in a manner against it’s own Constitution, and with a state supreme court that rules against the plain text of the law, then there is a corrupt state government. As a republic of united states, it is both the duty and obligation for the federal government to intervene. Also, there is precedence for intervening. Rand has applied ZERO constitutional logic; his reasoning is worse than fundamentally flawed, it is lacking entirely.
Unlike the others, I don't think Rand sold out, but I do think he was kind of pathetic here.
The Paul faggots fucking kill me. Every single time he shits on us people defend his ass. If he wasn't such a raging faggot we would have been able to repeal the ACA and finish the wall.
Why don't you think he sold out? How do you explain it then.
I don't think Paul is swamp, but many libertarians love losing just as much as Patton loved winning.
Rand's argument was that the state legislature's certified the vote, and we shouldn't set a precedent where Congress can overturn elections. Pretty solid reasoning if you ask me, even if I do disagree with the result.
But even according to the States' own laws and judgments certification is just a "magisterial" procedure that means nothing. It does not mean they verified their counts, only that they went through certain legal motions. And in AZ, GA, and WI they out and out denied legal contestations and remedies. In those places and more they denied basic due processes via substantive audits or other verification measures. Certification is a rubber stamp. Acceding to it is just handing the entire election over to Election Officials in counties and Sec of State offices, which is completely unconstitutional.
Ive been saying this about pence. It’s the state legislatures. These people let us down in so many ways.
No, it is not solid in the least bit. When a state conducts it’s election in a manner against it’s own Constitution, and with a state supreme court that rules against the plain text of the law, then there is a corrupt state government. As a republic of united states, it is both the duty and obligation for the federal government to intervene. Also, there is precedence for intervening. Rand has applied ZERO constitutional logic; his reasoning is worse than fundamentally flawed, it is lacking entirely.
I get the reasoning.
However, the problem is that Rand's reasoning only works in a perfect world where everyone plays by the rules.
This is wartime.
Therefore, entirely unacceptable.
That's okay. He has now shown his inability to lead.