Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues The Trump Administration Post-Election Mischief

In 2016 Democrats were not happy with the results. But we didn't deny that the results were valid. Once again Republicans lost the popular vote yet won the electoral college and the White House. We were called poor losers. This timje around they lost the popular vote by a wide margin and the electoral college too.

The election was a fraud and a hoax because...uh...they cannot lose! Because God has chosen Donald Trump to guide the church through the end times...? So who the feck is a sore loser here? Who the feck has set the stage for future lawsuits and future claims of fraud...

Every time our country becomes a little less democratic and a little less free it is Republicans who have led us there.

**edit**...and every time Democrats try to fight back and use the same dirty tactics used against them...cries of BOTH SIDES DO IT! ring out from the fringes...

LOL, god didn't choose Trump, the idiots Republicans did. The article was talking about the future, not the past. Up until this year, there hasn't been a problem outside of 2000 of the loser accepting the results. Florida was all messed up in 2000, with the networks first declaring Gore the winner before the polls closed in the panhandle, central time zone, then declaring Bush the winner before they finally admitted it was too close to call.

I was referring to the future elections as was the article, not the past ones when I made my final remark. Just feel lucky you aren't from Georgia with the national runoff scheduled for January. I got so sick and tired of all the political ads portraying all four of the candidates as the worst scumbags on earth deserving a special place in hell, I turned off the TV and went to watching old Charlie Chan movies and the history vault's Digging for the Truth. I doubt I'll turn on the TV until the runoffs are over.

I don't think an election loss by 6 votes is the same as losing by 20k or 150k. My guess is she did not have the money left to file for a recount ... if you're serious about the job and there is only a 6 vote difference ... well ... There was already a change of some 150 votes getting to -6. As all election officials have stated, a recount usually is only a small number of votes ... as in this case. Remember in Clark Co NV, they threw out the election results of a county commissioner because the vote count was too close and required a very fine granular look at results, prompting them to settle for another election.

So the question should be, does it really matter which party was involved in an election that close? I don't care if it was the Dem Party or Rep Party or the office Christmas Party .... if it's that close get it right

Heretic!!!

Apostate!!!

Let me introduce you to some of my Trump supporting acquaintances.

And I was referring to the original sins that set us on this path of contention between the parties. Yes....if it's okay for Trump to be corrupt, is it okay for Biden? Or is it only okay for Republicans?
Trump has set a new standard for all presidents to come...shady dealings...? Don't release your taxes...multiple wives, sex scandals, connections to foreign governments...?

All okay if you're a Republican.

We are dangerously close to a successful soft coup.

In 2016 Republicans held the majority in the Senate. They had the power. They preferred to say, let's hear the voters voice. It is far too crass for them to just say the truth ... they had the power.

In 2020 they continue to have the power in numerous states and in the Senate. They have the power. Need I elaborate? What is to keep them from using the power? Men of honour? Men of the law? Men with integrity?

Has anyone not heard US Senators saying there are voter fraud issues in battleground states? We are dangerously close to the unimaginable.

She decided to forego, not that she didn't have the money as the article said. There was already a recount as the article and you stated. From the article.

"After what appears to be the tightest congressional election in decades, Rita Hart, a state senator, has decided to forgo a legal battle in her home state and will instead contest the election directly with the House Administration Committee. Iowa election officials certified Republican Mariannette Miller-Meeks as the winner on Monday after a recount diminished her initial victory margin from 47 votes to only 6 votes."

With the Democratic Majority in the House, she will be declared the winner. Now we all have been getting on Trump for not abiding by the wishes of the voters...

McConnell is a very vindictive person, that may have been payback for Schumer in July 2007, a year and a half before the end of the Bush administration stating he wouldn't allow Bush to appoint a new justice to the SCOTUS if an opening occurred.

This is what I hate about both major parties, no core values. Then in 2016 Schumer did an 180 with Garland. McConnell also did a 180 with Garland in 2016 and Barrett in 2020. Neither has any core values in my book.

If it were me, I'd have a rule for both parties that any SCOTUS nominee should have his hearing and a floor vote if nominate 6 months prior to a presidential election. Any nomination after that should wait until after the election. In other words, Garland should have had his hearing in committee and a floor vote, Barrett shouldn't have.

Now least we all forget, Barrett was made possible by ex-democratic senate majority leader Harry Reid's first use of the nuclear option thus setting a precedence for its use. So it's him we owe this debt of thanks to.

Way too many times our politicians in Washington only think of the short term political gain and not the long range prospects for the future or that what they do may be used by the other side and come back to haunt. What was Reid thinking, that the democrats would hold the senate for an eternity or McConnell and company were gentlemen and would never stoop to use the nuclear option.

Did Schumer actually ever hold-up a GWBush SCOTUS nominee during that time? No.

Rightwingers seem to have this mindset that "both sides do it" for some reason. I suppose its done to assuage the rightwing sociopathy since they're never going to seek help and fix themselves and become emotionally healthy human beings.

I think one can be blinded by partisan blindness. Another example was Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid from 2011 through 2015 tabled over 300 Republican house bills without such as a committee hears. Then McConnell does exactly the same thing, tabling Democratic house passed bill and that causes the Democrats to scream. But it was perfectly okay and acceptable for the Democrats to have Reid do it. Not so with McConnell.

You're correct, no opening for the SCOTUS came about during Bush's last year and half. But I have no reason to doubt Schumer's sincerity on this subject if one did. All I'm looking for is for a politician to take a stance and stick with it on these things. Be consistent. Not to be for something when it benefits your party, but be against the exact same thing when it benefits the other party.

Personally, I think Schumer was wrong in 2007 and McConnell wrong in 2016. Then McConnell became a grade A hypocrite this year with Barrett. I rate Schumer as a grade B hypocrite since the opening never occurred during Bush. Even tossing out 2007, you had Schumer being a very strong advocate for committee hearings and a floor vote on Garland and strongly opposed to the hearings and floor votes on Barrett. That my friend is a perfect 180 strictly based on whether or not one would gain a party advantage or not. I'm just looking for constancy.