Republican senators state they will vote against challenging electors

by refusing to answer the direct question (because you know it destroys your very first post in this thread) you have conceded the argument. I've accepted it several times now. If you wanted to actually debate, then provide an answer to the question. You won't, because you know the claim you made on page 1 has been completely refuted.

 

There is no such thing on page 1.

 

I directly quoted you, lol

 

Directly quoting me does not mean you refuted anything. You have claimed you refuted something hundreds of times over the last couple of years. I can't find where you actually refuted anything.

 

strawman. I didn't say quoting you refuted you. I said I directly quoted your post where you made the claim. I refuted it in my reply to that quote.

your claims remain refuted. I'm sorry. The house does not vote by state, unless the entire house votes first and a simple majority votes to throw out the electors. That has a zero chance of happening, as democrats are not going to defect to republicans side and vote to install trump into the presidency.

 

CenterField is right. The whole "one vote per state" think only happens if the EC votes are actually thrown out. The vote to throw out the EC votes requires a majority in both the House and the Senate. That would have to happen first before we went to "one vote per state" in the House.

 

This is correct . . . IF they through out the votes to begin with. Which they don't have the votes for. They would need a majority in both the House and the Senate. Dems have a controlling majority in the House and there are enough sane Republicans to prevent this from happening in the Senate. The Senators mentioned in the OP + the Dems in the Senate = a majority voting against overturning.

 

That is exactly what I said in the my quote you used.

One of the problem with this whole conversation is that people have jumped into the middle of where we were discussing one point without considering the conversations up to that point..

 

You need to get over it. I never said it would happen or that it would not happen. I was discussing the procedure itself. You have failed to "refute" anything.

 

So you understand that it will not get to the point of "one vote per state"? Good. Glad to hear it.

 

Not a point of my discussion one way or the other.

 

Well, you responded to the OP, which was about the vote over challenging EC votes, by talking about an entirely separate vote that will never happen. Hence the confusion. Since you responded to a post about the EC challenge vote by saying how you thought the voting worked, people assumed you were talking about the voting mentioned in the OP. Glad to hear you were talking about something else entirely.

 

And you were corrected on the procedure and how it applies.

 

Your argument has been:

When I said no such thing.

 

already addressed this. your refusal to answer the direct yes/no question, is your concession and acknowledgement. I'm happy to continue accepting it, unless you would like to actually directly answer it now?

 

In what universe is logic like yours accepted? One has nothing to do with the other.

 

Romney is a lifelong Republican, he's been a Republican much long than the 7 time party switcher which in this stint has been a Republican for a total of 8 years. He's been a Democrat twice as long. Heck, he even belonged to my tiny Reform Party for a little over a year. The true RINO in all of this is Trump as he is nothing more than an egotistical opportunist who will join any party, change his beliefs, do whatever it takes to enhance Trump without caring a single iota about anyone else. How many has he thrown under the bus or created a feud against just because one had a bad thought about him.

Get real, Romney is a true, lifelong Republican vs. the 7 time party switcher who doesn't know what he is and he doesn't care about the Republican Party. Just himself. Just think, Trump has been an RINO 3 times, a DINO at least twice, a REFORMINO once and an IINO twice. what a history.

 

Romney is running for president in 2024. He just has not announced it yet.

 

this one.

 

I will explain in a way which even the most ignorant person should understand. I you refuse to understand it, then you must be the most ignorant person I have ever encountered.

Only I can concede for myself. A person cannot be mandated to concede anything by creating some arbitrary conditions imposed by someone else.

 

I think the GOP would be better suited with a fresh, younger face. It's time for a new generation to take over.

 

nope, we've been over this already.

 

Hehehe! The Never Trumpers gonna Never......

 

Romney's a Democrat and every Republican knows it.

 

Hmm. Don't understand?