Have you? He expressed quite plainly that he felt that he did not have unilateral authority to invalidate votes. According to the powers granted to the office of the Vice President by the Twelfth Amendment, that is, in fact, true.
You're an idiot. The point is that "dead ink on paper" is not a valid argument. You can't complain about the law being broken and then turn around and suggest breaking the law. It wouldn't have solved our problem at all. Pence invalidating votes would've been ruled against as having "no standing" (and this time SCOTUS would've been correct) and we'd be right where we are now.
Ruels are not magically invalidated simply because they were written by dead men. You save nothing by breaking the rules. If anything, all that would've happened is that he would've made the case for the people that actually stole the election. They spent years hyping up the "Trump is a tyrant" line, complete with calls for the military to remove him from the White House.
Again, if you're going to beef with Pence over "ink", then you should have the same problem with Trump. Why didn't he invoke the Insurrection Act?
When did you complain? Are you seriously this stupid? Your entire response history to me has been nothing but complaints about the law being broken.
"The nation was seized by evil because muh constitution"
There's at least one example right there in the last line of your most recent response.
"We'll never get a chance to know"
Such a dickless cop-out. We saw SCOTUS do it more than once, so there's zero reason to think it would've been any different.
And yet clearly they do have some kind of existence outside of men's minds because people outside of those who created the law are making the choice to follow it and people choose to not do certain things because of said laws. By that logic, there is no inherenrt problem with murder, rape, theft, etc. By your own logic you have no complaint since it is all entirely in your head and thus worthless to the rest of us.
Evil did not take over anything because it's simply all in your head.
We are not on the path to Leftist domination because it's simply all in your head.
According to who would it have given us a chance at victory? Again, you're presuming that there would have been some great diversion, that it would have not been ruled "moot" or "no standing" like the rest of the issues we've seen. It is most certainly a cop-out. Pence had no authority to do what you claimed he should have done, ergo there is zero logicl reason to believe it would have been ruled as such. It would have too easy for SCOTUS to slap it down, and they would have been correct had they done so.
You illustrate perfectly why the whole "The right is losing, ignore laws" line is the tell-tale sign of some kind of agent provocateur, infiltrator, glowy, etc. You tout the line like a billboard, but will never practice what you preach because your goal is to lead others into a trap.
The entire point is to hold the system in such a way, otherwise there is no point in having said system at all. This is the same stupid logic used by those who have broken the law in the first place, i.e. the law no longer matters because someone circumvented and/or ignored it and therefore it is fair game for everyone to do the same. Where that the case, what have you done about the problem you continue to insist exists?
Have you? He expressed quite plainly that he felt that he did not have unilateral authority to invalidate votes. According to the powers granted to the office of the Vice President by the Twelfth Amendment, that is, in fact, true.
You're an idiot. The point is that "dead ink on paper" is not a valid argument. You can't complain about the law being broken and then turn around and suggest breaking the law. It wouldn't have solved our problem at all. Pence invalidating votes would've been ruled against as having "no standing" (and this time SCOTUS would've been correct) and we'd be right where we are now.
Ruels are not magically invalidated simply because they were written by dead men. You save nothing by breaking the rules. If anything, all that would've happened is that he would've made the case for the people that actually stole the election. They spent years hyping up the "Trump is a tyrant" line, complete with calls for the military to remove him from the White House.
Again, if you're going to beef with Pence over "ink", then you should have the same problem with Trump. Why didn't he invoke the Insurrection Act?
When did you complain? Are you seriously this stupid? Your entire response history to me has been nothing but complaints about the law being broken.
"The nation was seized by evil because muh constitution"
There's at least one example right there in the last line of your most recent response.
"We'll never get a chance to know"
Such a dickless cop-out. We saw SCOTUS do it more than once, so there's zero reason to think it would've been any different.
And yet clearly they do have some kind of existence outside of men's minds because people outside of those who created the law are making the choice to follow it and people choose to not do certain things because of said laws. By that logic, there is no inherenrt problem with murder, rape, theft, etc. By your own logic you have no complaint since it is all entirely in your head and thus worthless to the rest of us.
Evil did not take over anything because it's simply all in your head.
We are not on the path to Leftist domination because it's simply all in your head.
According to who would it have given us a chance at victory? Again, you're presuming that there would have been some great diversion, that it would have not been ruled "moot" or "no standing" like the rest of the issues we've seen. It is most certainly a cop-out. Pence had no authority to do what you claimed he should have done, ergo there is zero logicl reason to believe it would have been ruled as such. It would have too easy for SCOTUS to slap it down, and they would have been correct had they done so.
You illustrate perfectly why the whole "The right is losing, ignore laws" line is the tell-tale sign of some kind of agent provocateur, infiltrator, glowy, etc. You tout the line like a billboard, but will never practice what you preach because your goal is to lead others into a trap.
The entire point is to hold the system in such a way, otherwise there is no point in having said system at all. This is the same stupid logic used by those who have broken the law in the first place, i.e. the law no longer matters because someone circumvented and/or ignored it and therefore it is fair game for everyone to do the same. Where that the case, what have you done about the problem you continue to insist exists?