Reminders for 170 Election Deniers Heading to the Capitol this January

[Fantine]

You are taking an oath of office: "“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

19 Senators. 154 Congressmen/women. All Republican. All taking an oath to support and defend the Constitution (while conveniently ignoring Article II, Section 1---with not even a pinch, a thread, a teaspoon of evidence on which to base their delusions.)

31.77% of Congress is taking an oath while denying Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution. They are the "enemies, foreign and domestic" that Article II is speaking about. They are questioning an election that was fairly won two years ago and has stood up to dozens of baseless investigations.

Georgia is to be commended for reelecting a national hero--Secretary of State Brad Raffensberger, who stood up for the truth despite risking his career.

What do we do when 31.77% of our federal representatives are the "domestic enemies" the Constitution warned us against?

 

[Aldebaran]

You are taking an oath of office: "“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

19 Senators. 154 Congressmen/women. All Republican. All taking an oath to support and defend the Constitution (while conveniently ignoring Article II, Section 1---with not even a pinch, a thread, a teaspoon of evidence on which to base their delusions.)

31.77% of Congress is taking an oath while denying Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution. They are the "enemies, foreign and domestic" that Article II is speaking about. They are questioning an election that was fairly won two years ago and has stood up to dozens of baseless investigations.

Georgia is to be commended for reelecting a national hero--Secretary of State Brad Raffensberger, who stood up for the truth despite risking his career.

What do we do when 31.77% of our federal representatives are the "domestic enemies" the Constitution warned us against?

Well, you could stop calling them "domestic enemies". That would be a good start. Remember that it was a majority that voted for them. That's how they got elected, unless you want to take on the label of "election denier". Otherwise, you'll have to believe that the majority of voter are domestic enemies as well. So much for democracy.
Also, don't forget that there are many democrats that fit the election denier description as well, even if you're in denial of that fact. https://gop.com/research/over-150-examples-of-democrats-denying-election-results-rsr/

 

[Fantine]

I can't explain why a majority of voters in a district would elect someone who was incapable of honoring their oath of office but they obviously did. That doesn't mean that legislators who are incapable of honoring their oath of office are not our domestic enemies. They are. They are attempting to dismantle our democracy from within. And they are 31.77% of our federal legislators.

 

[Aldebaran]

I can't explain why a majority of voters in a district would elect someone who was incapable of honoring their oath of office but they obviously did. That doesn't mean that legislators who are incapable of honoring their oath of office are not our domestic enemies. They are. They are attempting to dismantle our democracy from within. And they are 31.77% of our federal legislators.

Biden said "“We had an election yesterday,” Biden said. “And it was a good day, I think, for democracy.” https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/09/politics/biden-news-conference-midterms
Did he lie?

Also, why aren't you willing to discuss the 150 democrats that are election deniers, most of who are still in office, and attempting to dismantle our democracy from within?

 

[Vylo]

Well, you could stop calling them "domestic enemies". That would be a good start. Remember that it was a majority that voted for them. That's how they got elected, unless you want to take on the label of "election denier". Otherwise, you'll have to believe that the majority of voter are domestic enemies as well. So much for democracy.
Also, don't forget that there are many democrats that fit the election denier description as well, even if you're in denial of that fact. https://gop.com/research/over-150-examples-of-democrats-denying-election-results-rsr/

They called themselves "domestic terrorists" at CPAC

 

[Fantine]

When a Democrat, whether 1 or 150, thinks there is a problem with an election, it's almost never with ballot boxes. Usually it is with a structural problem that exists--gerrymandering for discriminatory reasons, too few polling places in urban areas with many Democrats, lack of access to early or mail voting. These structural problems 'tilt' the election. Who says "legal" has to be "ethical?" Certainly not the Republicans who make the laws that tilt the election.
The difference is that Democrats reluctantly accept the result while working continuously to eliminate the unethical laws--through courts, through the ACLU, through massive voter registration efforts. Trying to right wrongs caused by unethical laws is heroic, not terroristic.
Similarly, they accepted the election of Donald Trump, after being revived with smelling salts. As confirmed by the Mueller Report, there was Russian interference but no proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the Trump campaign was involved. The impeachment hearings were for reasons too numerous and serious to count. They didn't need to invent reasons--the Mueller Report, redacted as it was, clearly said that the records should be saved and potential charges filed at a later time when the Attorney General was not as clearly biased as Jeff Sessions' replacement.

 

[Petros2015]

And they are 31.77% of our federal legislators.

One would assume then that they are roughly 31.77% of your national population.
If you don't like what they are doing, you can always outvote them
And hope they don't deny that they were outvoted.

If they do, well, they'll burn that bridge when they come to it.

 

[Friedrich Rubinstein]

I'm not an American, so here's an outside perspective:

Your whole "election deniers - if republicans - are a threat to the democracy" narrative is silly. Not only because your definition of "election denier" includes every person who dares to ask a critical question about the voting system, but also because the same parameters, if applied to your own party, include just as many of those. Or do you really want to go ahead and defend people like Stacey Abrams?

Instead of labelling everyone who disagrees with you as "domestic enemies" you should work on your voting system to make it more trustworthy. Then people wouldn't be so skeptical.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I'm not an American, so here's an outside perspective:

Your whole "election deniers - if republicans - are a threat to the democracy" narrative is silly. Not only because your definition of "election denier" includes every person who dares to ask a critical question about the voting system, but also because the same parameters, if applied to your own party, include just as many of those. Or do you really want to go ahead and defend people like Stacey Abrams?

Instead of labelling everyone who disagrees with you as "domestic enemies" you should work on your voting system to make it more trustworthy. Then people wouldn't be so skeptical.

What we're seeing here in the US with regards to elections appears (to me at least) to be an escalating pattern that started back in the year 2000.

With each repetition of the cycle, it gets a little more hostile and a little more conspiratorial.

It started with Gore wanting recounts in FL and theories about how "George Bush must have rigged Florida with sketchy voting machines because his brother is the governor down there" - with accompanying theories about how he was somehow "in on" 9/11.

Then the next time around it was theories about how Obama wasn't a valid president due to conspiracy theories about him not being born in the US.

Then came Trump, and theories about him being some sort of secret Russian asset and the Russians getting him elected

Then came Biden, and all of the theories about "stolen elections" that whipped people up into such a frenzy that they stormed the Capitol.



It'd be nice if we could have a robust election system that made everyone comfortable, but that's going to be tough to accomplish since both sides like to play their own little games with it in ways that make outcomes more likely to favor them. Republicans have become masters of gerrymandering to pick up extra seats that they shouldn't be winning and making it tougher to vote in certain areas where they know they don't have the majority, on the flip side, Democrats have found ways to keep loosening standards in ways that benefit them, and have hedged their position by preemptively laying out talking points that attempt to label anyone opposing the loosening of those standards as "doing it for reasons of racial bigotry"

 

[Friedrich Rubinstein]

It'd be nice if we could have a robust election system that made everyone comfortable, but that's going to be tough to accomplish since both sides like to play their own little games with it in ways that make outcomes more likely to favor them.

Right, and I understand the desire of both sides to do that. But in a true democracy there should be as little room as possible for even such a possibility, don't you think?
While I am not in favor of suppressing speech (which includes Democrat's talk about the "end of democracy if we don't win"), there seem to be things happening in the US that are deeply worrying to people who care about fair elections, such as people being listed on the voter list that have either moved to another state or died already, ballot-harvesting, or the fact that you have more of an "election month" than an "election day".

 

[Blade]

Biden said "“We had an election yesterday,” Biden said. “And it was a good day, I think, for democracy.” https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/09/politics/biden-news-conference-midterms
Did he lie?

Also, why aren't you willing to discuss the 150 democrats that are election deniers, most of who are still in office, and attempting to dismantle our democracy from within?

Amen.. amen and amen. The simple fact we can yet some oh and its so sad how they are treated for doing saying something they have a right to.

"domestic enemies" the Constitution " that was not about people that didn't agree with some election when they had ever right to question it. Then when those that won did the same thing when they lost in the past.

 

[Aldebaran]

When a Democrat, whether 1 or 150, thinks there is a problem with an election, it's almost never with ballot boxes. Usually it is with a structural problem that exists--gerrymandering for discriminatory reasons, too few polling places in urban areas with many Democrats, lack of access to early or mail voting. These structural problems 'tilt' the election. Who says "legal" has to be "ethical?" Certainly not the Republicans who make the laws that tilt the election.
The difference is that Democrats reluctantly accept the result while working continuously to eliminate the unethical laws--through courts, through the ACLU, through massive voter registration efforts. Trying to right wrongs caused by unethical laws is heroic, not terroristic.
Similarly, they accepted the election of Donald Trump, after being revived with smelling salts. As confirmed by the Mueller Report, there was Russian interference but no proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the Trump campaign was involved. The impeachment hearings were for reasons too numerous and serious to count. They didn't need to invent reasons--the Mueller Report, redacted as it was, clearly said that the records should be saved and potential charges filed at a later time when the Attorney General was not as clearly biased as Jeff Sessions' replacement.

No matter how many words you write, those democrats remain election deniers.

 

[Yttrium]

Instead of labelling everyone who disagrees with you as "domestic enemies" you should work on your voting system to make it more trustworthy. Then people wouldn't be so skeptical.

The voting system has been trustworthy. It wasn't until Donald Trump came along and predicted massive fraud to cover for his own shortcomings that it became a (false) issue. Once he underperformed, he reinforced his empty claims of massive fraud despite a complete lack of any indication to support him. And after many investigations, he continued to claim massive fraud despite a complete lack of evidence to support him. Sure, you can find a little fraud here and there in every election, but nothing remotely like what Trump claimed. Many of his fans joined in the claims, and certain politicians who are fans of Trump started making claims of massive voter fraud in their own elections.

It's all a dopey conspiracy theory. The elections are always subject to intense scrutiny, and they continue to work just fine, with minimal fraud. The results can always be challenged, and there's nothing wrong with that, but making absurdly false claims of massive wrongdoing is abusive to our political system.

 

[Friedrich Rubinstein]

The voting system has been trustworthy. It wasn't until Donald Trump came along and predicted massive fraud to cover for his own shortcomings that it became a (false) issue. Once he underperformed, he reinforced his empty claims of massive fraud despite a complete lack of any indication to support him. And after many investigations, he continued to claim massive fraud despite a complete lack of evidence to support him. Sure, you can find a little fraud here and there in every election, but nothing remotely like what Trump claimed. Many of his fans joined in the claims, and certain politicians who are fans of Trump started making claims of massive voter fraud in their own elections.

It's all a dopey conspiracy theory. The elections are always subject to intense scrutiny, and they continue to work just fine, with minimal fraud. The results can always be challenged, and there's nothing wrong with that, but making absurdly false claims of massive wrongdoing is abusive to our political system.

You probably noticed that most of the 170 people this thread is about didn't say any of that. By that standard every democrat who talks about "voter suppression" is an election denier as well.

 

[Yttrium]

You probably noticed that most of the 170 people this thread is about didn't say any of that.

Well, that's a good point. The OP unfairly assumes that all of the Republicans elected were backing Trump's claims.

By that standard every democrat who talks about "voter suppression" is an election denier as well.

Only if they claim that the results were due to voter suppression. Then they should suffer the wrath of righteous remonstration. If they're just complaining about voter suppression then no, it's not election denial.

 

[Friedrich Rubinstein]

Only if they claim that the results were due to voter suppression. Then they should suffer the wrath of righteous remonstration. If they're just complaining about voter suppression then no, it's not election denial.

Fair enough. I assume that you then also agree that simply complaining about ballot-harvesting and outdated voter-lists is not election denial. One should be allowed to question the reliability of certain procedures, right?

 

[Yttrium]

Fair enough. I assume that you then also agree that simply complaining about ballot-harvesting and outdated voter-lists is not election denial. One should be allowed to question the reliability of certain procedures, right?

Certainly. We can always work to make adjustments to make things better. The problem of course is that different people can have conflicting ideas on what makes things better.

 

[DaisyDay]

No matter how many words you write, those democrats remain election deniers.

Baloney. There is a difference between requesting a recount and accepting the results and declaring the vote was rigged before the votes were even cast.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Baloney. There is a difference between requesting a recount and accepting the results and declaring the vote was rigged before the votes were even cast.

I would agree with you at a high level...but the gaslighting attempts hinder the sentiment.

When the same people who are most loudly insisting "the voting wasn't rigged" (which is true, it wasn't...Biden won fair and square) are the same people who are suggesting that universal mail in voting with relaxed restrictions was "the safest and most secure in US history" (which anyone with half a brain knows isn't true), it weakens the message.

The gaslighting attempts are a particular portion of strategy that democrats, in particular, need to work on...and I hope they work on it soon and work out the kinks, because I actually agree with them more than I agree with republicans.

 

[Aldebaran]

Baloney. There is a difference between requesting a recount and accepting the results and declaring the vote was rigged before the votes were even cast.

Are these examples what you refer to as "requesting a recount"?
Maxine Waters: Grabien - The Multimedia Marketplace

Dianne Feinstein: Grabien - The Multimedia Marketplace

John Lewis: Grabien - The Multimedia Marketplace

Stacy Abrams: 12 Times Stacey Abrams Said She Got Cheated in Georgia - Washington Free Beacon

Kamala Harris: Kamala Harris claims Democrats Gillum, Abrams would have won in 2018 'without voter suppression'

All are election deniers according to how that term is used today. But it seems that sentiments change depending on who is in power.