Bannon says AZ will "decertify" Biden electors

[pecksniff]

For which there is no legal mechanism.

Several individuals are slated to speak at the "Save America" rally in Florence, Arizona, including Mike Lindell, Paul Gosar, Andy Biggs, and several candidates running for public office in the state who have received Trump's endorsement.

The event was scheduled after Trump canceled his January 6 speech at Mar-a-Lago, which his advisers said would result in bad press coverage and urged him against doing.

"I want to make sure Jamie Raskin, Bennie Thompson, all you guys write this down. Take your No. 2 pencils out. We're going to decertify, I didn't say we were going to certify Trump electors, but we're going to decertify Biden electors in Arizona, in Wisconsin, in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and in the great state of Georgia," Bannon said on his podcast.

Law professors from Arizona State University told Poynter there is no legal mechanism to undo the appointment of electors or change a certification once a president has been sworn into office. Multiple GOP-led audits in the state also confirmed Biden's presidential win over Trump.

Still, a handful of GOP officials in the Arizona legislature are calling on Gov. Doug Ducey and state senate President Karen Fann, both of whom are Republicans, to decertify the state's election results, the Arizona Capitol Times reported.

 

[phrodeau]

They should make him beg and scrape, pleading on his knees. You know, just for fun.

 

[pecksniff]

They should make him beg and scrape, pleading on his knees. You know, just for fun.

Trump, Bannon, or Ducey?

 

[phrodeau]

Trump, Bannon, or Ducey?

Oh, Bannon for sure. He’s most likely to do it.

 

[Tigersman]

The best thing that could happen to Bannon is a complete frontal lobotomy.

 

[oggbashan]

The best thing that could happen to Bannon is a complete frontal lobotomy.

Aren't you too late? It looks as if he has already had one.

 

[HisArpy]

The idea is stupid.

First, there's no legal mechanism to do it. If the State Legislature feels it's a good idea, then they should craft a Bill for the Governor to sign. Otherwise, STFU.

Secondly, it's been over a year since the election. Talk about whining over spilled milk...

Third, it's Steve Bannon. 'nuff said.

Fourth, I wonder what would happen if the media stopped publishing this nonsense instead of promoting it so they have something to publish?

 

[KeithD]

Fourth, I wonder what would happen if the media stopped publishing this nonsense instead of promoting it so they have something to publish?

I wonder what would happen if you stopped posting the nonsense you do on a porn discussion board. I'm sure Literotica would be all the better for it.

 

[Comshaw]

For which there is no legal mechanism.

Several individuals are slated to speak at the "Save America" rally in Florence, Arizona, including Mike Lindell, Paul Gosar, Andy Biggs, and several candidates running for public office in the state who have received Trump's endorsement.

The event was scheduled after Trump canceled his January 6 speech at Mar-a-Lago, which his advisers said would result in bad press coverage and urged him against doing.

"I want to make sure Jamie Raskin, Bennie Thompson, all you guys write this down. Take your No. 2 pencils out. We're going to decertify, I didn't say we were going to certify Trump electors, but we're going to decertify Biden electors in Arizona, in Wisconsin, in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and in the great state of Georgia," Bannon said on his podcast.

Law professors from Arizona State University told Poynter there is no legal mechanism to undo the appointment of electors or change a certification once a president has been sworn into office. Multiple GOP-led audits in the state also confirmed Biden's presidential win over Trump.

Still, a handful of GOP officials in the Arizona legislature are calling on Gov. Doug Ducey and state senate President Karen Fann, both of whom are Republicans, to decertify the state's election results, the Arizona Capitol Times reported.

snake oil salesman

Someone who sells, promotes, or is a general proponent of some valueless or fraudulent cure, remedy, or solution.



Comshaw

 

[Rightguide]

Bannon knows how to trigger the left. That's all this is.

 

[HisArpy]

I wonder what would happen if you stopped posting the nonsense you do on a porn discussion board. I'm sure Literotica would be all the better for it.

Oh no.... The dreaded, "stop saying stuff I don't believe in" dogwhistle.


You do realize, I hope, that if only those things you believe in without controversy could be posted, you'd be the only person here and talking to yourself.


Kinda like when you're at home. And even then you have to keep your own mouth shut at least half the time.

 

[Comshaw]

The idea is stupid.

First, there's no legal mechanism to do it. If the State Legislature feels it's a good idea, then they should craft a Bill for the Governor to sign. Otherwise, STFU.

Secondly, it's been over a year since the election. Talk about whining over spilled milk...

Third, it's Steve Bannon. 'nuff said.

Fourth, I wonder what would happen if the media stopped publishing this nonsense instead of promoting it so they have something to publish?

Hey, I'm all for that, but aren't you one of the one's who led the "the left is trying to censor free speech!" charge when it was suggested misinformation be barred from social platforms? What's the difference with that misinformation, and this? Free speech ain't it? Or is it just the speech you see as misinformation?

Hmmmmm....decisions, decisions.


Comshaw

 

[HisArpy]

Hey, I'm all for that, but aren't you one of the one's who led the "the left is trying to censor free speech!" charge when it was suggested misinformation be barred from social platforms? What's the difference with that misinformation, and this? Free speech ain't it? Or is it just the speech you see as misinformation?

Hmmmmm....decisions, decisions.


Comshaw

1. Sorry, not me. I'm the guy who defends the rights of those making claims of harm caused by others so you must be fantasizing about someone else.

2. Free speech is free speech. If it's limited to "approved speech" then it ain't "free speech" now is it?

3. I find it disingenuous that those who promote "free speech" instantly revert to "social media is private property" when their "approved speech" views are challenged. Especially when that social media INVITES said "free speech" then disallows only the parts they disagree with while claiming immunity from their own actions.

 

[WillJ8787]

Oh, Bannon for sure. He’s most likely to do it.

Yep, from his jail cell no doubt.

 

[pecksniff]

Bannon knows how to trigger the left. That's all this is.

A right wing that has nothing better to do than that has no business existing.

 

[Rightguide]

A right wing that has nothing better to do than that has no business existing.

^^^
Peck presumes to make God-like pronouncements. Delusions of grandeur.

 

[Comshaw]

The idea is stupid.

First, there's no legal mechanism to do it. If the State Legislature feels it's a good idea, then they should craft a Bill for the Governor to sign. Otherwise, STFU.

Secondly, it's been over a year since the election. Talk about whining over spilled milk...

Third, it's Steve Bannon. 'nuff said.

Fourth, I wonder what would happen if the media stopped publishing this nonsense instead of promoting it so they have something to publish?

1. Sorry, not me. I'm the guy who defends the rights of those making claims of harm caused by others so you must be fantasizing about someone else.

2. Free speech is free speech. If it's limited to "approved speech" then it ain't "free speech" now is it?

3. I find it disingenuous that those who promote "free speech" instantly revert to "social media is private property" when their "approved speech" views are challenged. Especially when that social media INVITES said "free speech" then disallows only the parts they disagree with while claiming immunity from their own actions.

Let's see here, you said:

"...Fourth, I wonder what would happen if the media stopped publishing this nonsense instead of promoting it so they have something to publish?..."

Then you said:

"...Free speech is free speech. If it's limited to "approved speech" then it ain't "free speech" now is it?..."


In the first quote, you suggest the news stop publishing what Bannon says because it''s "nonsense".

In the second you insist that free speech should not be limited by declaring only "approved speech" is acceptable.

So which is it? Remove it, stop quoting it as news because it's nonsense, or allow the dissemination of "nonsense" because it's free speech?

Decisions, decisions...

Comshaw

 

[YDB95]

Fourth, I wonder what would happen if the media stopped publishing this nonsense instead of promoting it so they have something to publish?

Then it would be able to fester a lot more easily, probably ultimately leading to another Oklahoma City bombing or worse. When a major political party is trying to engineer a way to overturn an election, it's news and the people have a right to know about it.

 

[Philthy_Phil]

Trumptards are such sore losers.

 

[HisArpy]

Let's see here, you said:

"...Fourth, I wonder what would happen if the media stopped publishing this nonsense instead of promoting it so they have something to publish?..."

Then you said:

"...Free speech is free speech. If it's limited to "approved speech" then it ain't "free speech" now is it?..."


In the first quote, you suggest the news stop publishing what Bannon says because it''s "nonsense".

In the second you insist that free speech should not be limited by declaring only "approved speech" is acceptable.

So which is it? Remove it, stop quoting it as news because it's nonsense, or allow the dissemination of "nonsense" because it's free speech?

Decisions, decisions...

Comshaw

This is just more of your inability to comprehend beyond the surface while trying to sound more intelligent than you are.


Free speech is free speech. That doesn't mean free from consequences. So far, the consequences of the MSM publishing the nonsense has led to civil unrest, billions in property damage, and several deaths.

That's not a good look. For anyone.


Then there's the simple fact that your mother probably/hopefully told you when you were a child that if you couldn't say anything nice, then don't say anything at all.

Question: Are you ready to publicly proclaim that your own mother was an "anti-free speech" advocate and denounce her? Based on your commentary above, it sure seems like she is. So, when are you going to step up and call your mom nasty names for trying to instill good manners in you?


At the end of the day, being an adult and choosing to keep your mouth shut instead of blurting out false narratives just to prove that you still haven't matured past adolescence, doesn't mean you don't have the Right to speak your mind. It means that you also have a Right to NOT speak and most people don't exercise that part of the 1st Amendment as often as they should.

Anyone who can't see/understand that needs to have a long delayed talk with his mom.

 

[HisArpy]

Then it would be able to fester a lot more easily, probably ultimately leading to another Oklahoma City bombing or worse. When a major political party is trying to engineer a way to overturn an election, it's news and the people have a right to know about it.

I question whether the media going all in on "Russia, Russia, Russia", the Ukraine phone call, Trump's pants were on backwards, and all the rest of the anti-Trump narrative were manufactured reasons done to justify condemning the reaction from those injured by the narrative.




"I'm not touching you. I'm not touching you. I'm not... *WHAP!* Mom! He hit me!!! Wahhhhhh!!!!!!!!" seems to be analogous to the current political situation.

 

[pecksniff]

I question whether the media going all in on "Russia, Russia, Russia", the Ukraine phone call, Trump's pants were on backwards, and all the rest of the anti-Trump narrative were manufactured reasons done to justify condemning the reaction from those injured by the narrative.

"Injured by the narrative"? Who, other than Trump himself?

 

[YDB95]

I question whether the media going all in on "Russia, Russia, Russia", the Ukraine phone call, Trump's pants were on backwards, and all the rest of the anti-Trump narrative were manufactured reasons done to justify condemning the reaction from those injured by the narrative.

Since "Russia Russia Russia" and the Ukraine phone call were both true, I can't think of one reason why the media shouldn't have "gone all in" on them. Same with Trump telling the Georgia SoS to "find 11,780 votes" and a list too long to complete here of other things we know for certain he did.

(Before anyone claims to have read the Mueller Report and that it debunked anything about Russian meddling...it didn't. The second sentence in the 450 page report: "The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion." As for Trump's involvement, the investigation intentionally took an approach that could not lead to Trump being prosecuted, due to an Office of Legal Counsel ruling that a sitting president is immune from prosecution. So it did not exonerate Trump in any way, it just came from a starting point where that question literally couldn't be answered. But it did conclude that whether the Trump campaign was directly involved in the meddling or not, they knew of it and welcomed it.)

 

[Lazaran]

Since "Russia Russia Russia" and the Ukraine phone call were both true, I can't think of one reason why the media shouldn't have "gone all in" on them. Same with Trump telling the Georgia SoS to "find 11,780 votes" and a list too long to complete here of other things we know for certain he did.

(Before anyone claims to have read the Mueller Report and that it debunked anything about Russian meddling...it didn't. The second sentence in the 450 page report: "The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion." As for Trump's involvement, the investigation intentionally took an approach that could not lead to Trump being prosecuted, due to an Office of Legal Counsel ruling that a sitting president is immune from prosecution. So it did not exonerate Trump in any way, it just came from a starting point where that question literally couldn't be answered. But it did conclude that whether the Trump campaign was directly involved in the meddling or not, they knew of it and welcomed it.)

The Deplorables will deny this ^ forever.

They know exactly how corrupt their orange fuhrer is / was; but he perfectly represents who THEY are, so they have no problem with his actions.

Representative government indeed.

SAD!!!

 

[Philthy_Phil]

Let's see here, you said:

"...Fourth, I wonder what would happen if the media stopped publishing this nonsense instead of promoting it so they have something to publish?..."

Then you said:

"...Free speech is free speech. If it's limited to "approved speech" then it ain't "free speech" now is it?..."


In the first quote, you suggest the news stop publishing what Bannon says because it''s "nonsense".

In the second you insist that free speech should not be limited by declaring only "approved speech" is acceptable.

So which is it? Remove it, stop quoting it as news because it's nonsense, or allow the dissemination of "nonsense" because it's free speech?

Decisions, decisions...

Comshaw

Take it easy on timmy. He thinks water is made from carbon.