Trump supporters storm the Capitol Building

[sillhouette]

Jesse Wegman (jessewegman)

Chandra Prasad (chandrabooks)

[ravenight]

@Dan_Theman

I’m not a populist; I feel it’s best to have talented and/or expert people in positions of influence, as they’ll be better equipped to make decisions on such matters than myself or most of my fellow constituents.

And when they make a decision that you disagree with, do you say, “Well, I voted for them to follow the facts, so they probably know something I don’t”?

[scottagibson]

@ravenight

In the abstract, is it actually reasonable for representatives to support the claim, given that many of them, with good reason, believe that their districts strongly support it, despite it being repeatedly disproven?

Well, you can test it with an extreme comparison. If all polls show that 80% of the citizens of Oklahoma believe that the President should be removed from office and replaced with a junta of 7 serving military officers, is it reasonable for the Senator from Oklahoma to put a bill to that effect on the floor of the Senate? I think ‘no’.

[ravenight]

No, no, see, Civil War meant that we need to be civil to each other and respectfully disagree about stuff.

[Rightbug]

@Nightgaunt

Has he? I think he’s simply said that the Senate is in recess until the 19th

I’m still almost a day behind so maybe there’s more info but I can see this going one of two ways:

1. Most likely, Mitch and other Senate Republicans likely hate Trump at this point and want to impeach him but fear angering his base. By stonewalling they take it off their hands and place it firmly in the Democrats which works well for their obstructionist goals. They can bitch about a witch-hunt if the heat is not quite as high and use it as another wedge to resolidify their base.

2. If there is enough pressure, particularly from donors, they may be forced to act which would be great.

I would not cede the first possibility to them. If they want to stonewall make that their call, don’t do it for them.

[Woolen_Horde]

@ravenight

No, no, see, Civil War meant that we need to be civil to each other and respectfully disagree about stuff.

There’s going to be a battle to see who’s more polite and nonviolent than the other guy.

[Freezer-TPF]

It would be a major flaw in the 25th Amendment if POTUS could avoid it by firing the cabinet.

[triggercut]

Kyle Griffin (kylegriffin1)

[ravenight]

@scottagibson

you can test it with an extreme comparison. If all polls show that 80% of the citizens of Oklahoma believe that the President should be removed from office and replaced with a junta of 7 serving military officers, is it reasonable for the Senator from Oklahoma to put a bill to that effect on the floor of the Senate? I think ‘no’.

I mean, you can use strawmen to test the question of whether or not there are circumstances where it is the duty of elected officials to override the will of their constituents. I bet you can come up with strawmen where it isn’t, also (for example, if asked to support a bill stating that the existence of god had never been proven). My question was about where the line is.

[Tin_Wisdom]

@lordkosc

From all the photos I’ve seen I wonder what actual number was deployed that day? Hell it looks like there were maybe 200 cops protecting the entire capital that day.

I’m interested to find out that number as well.

Wikipedia says that they have a force of 2000 “police officers” available, but I’m not clear if that includes all their office staff or only uniformed officers.

The Capitol Police have responsibility for the Capitol building itself, the congressional office buildings, and the Library of Congress. So they’re not all concentrated in the one (very large) building, but over 270 acres. Moreover, I can’t imagine that the officers assigned to the other buildings were stripped off of their stations when things started to go south.

And of course, they do shift-work with folks being on and off duty - even if the 2000 number is actually for gun-toting cops, they would not have all of them available. So I wonder how many they had on-duty that day? I’d imagine it probably wasn’t above 1000.

[scottagibson]

@Freezer-TPF

It would be a major flaw in the 25th Amendment if POTUS could avoid it by firing the cabinet.

Why can’t he fire the entire cabinet and replace them with acting members who don’t want to 25th amendment him? Doesn’t that constitute a flaw in the 25th amendment?

[Dan_Theman]

@ravenight

And when they make a decision that you disagree with, do you say, “Well, I voted for them to follow the facts, so they probably know something I don’t”?

I see how it bears out, and if in general I like the results of most of their decisions, I tend to be happy to vote for them again.

[scottagibson]

@ravenight

I mean, you can use strawmen to test the question of whether or not there are circumstances where it is the duty of elected officials to override the will of their constituents

Sure, but you asked about this particular example; an example of members of Congress who know the election was free and fair and that Biden won, but because their constituents — or worse, not even a majority of their constituents, just a majority of party primary voters! — don’t like the outcome, are willing to lie about the outcome and cast votes to try to overturn it. I think that reasonably, that’s on the wrong side of the proper just trying to represent my constituents line.

[ShivaX]

And recall that even the GOP only hits 18% approval for this shit.

If you were representing just the GOP and no one else, you’d have 82% against your position.

[vinraith]

@triggercut

Joe Biden: “I think it’s critically important that there be a real, serious focus on holding those folks who engaged in sedition and threatened people’s lives, defaced public property, caused great damage — that they be held accountable.”

Hell yes, Mr. President-Elect.

[SorenJohnson]

Very confused by why he is “debunking” the ban on running for president in the future. I mean, sure, it’s possible that after 2/3 of the Senate votes to impeach they don’t get a simple majority to ban his from running in the future, but that seems vanishingly unlikely. Indeed, it’s the strongest argument for actually impeaching (especially since he won’t be President by then).

[Matt_W]

@Freezer-TPF

It would be a major flaw in the 25th Amendment if POTUS could avoid it by firing the cabinet.

The 25th as written seems to be written for the situation where the President is incapacitated for some reason. It doesn’t really seem designed as a way to usurp him/her.

[Teiman]

MARS ATTACKS dont run we are your friends scene

“we are the party of law and order” say the megaphone, while they beat a cop with the USA flag and chant U.S.A

[sillhouette]

Scott Wong (scottwongDC)

[newbrof]

@sillhouette

22 former GOP

that’s the problem. A lot of former this and former that. But when in office, nothing.