Rand Paul is my hero.
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (81)
sorted by:
That's not entirely accurate. He tried to convince the Senate to send the results from the states back to the state legislatures, (which would have been the Constitutional thing to do) but they would not. I don't like the results, but he is standing on his states' rights principles and President Trump understands this. There has been no falling out between President Trump and Senator Paul, as there was between PT and, for example, VP Pence.
The reason doesn’t matter. The fact is you support Trump and vote for him, or you support the deep state and vote against him. Rand Paul votes against him.
Actually it does. The Rules of Congress require a House Member and a Senate member to both agree. Apparently those who voted for him in the Senate had the advantage of a supporting House member from their state. Sen. Paul didn't.
The Senate was the last line of defense for stopping a fraudulent election. Rand (who I would like to like) accepted knowingly false results. States Rights is a great argument right up until the point that the politicians in those states were bought and paid for, and cheated on the election in a blatant and obvious manner. Remember, the entire senate was briefed on the military intel - and knew exactly what went on. They KNEW.
The Senators who certified the fraudulent election ignored their duty and their oath to protect our right to vote and to protect the Constitution - all with their own set of excuses.
As Q said, they have to cut deals and work with a lot of politicians, otherwise 70% would be in prison. Source: https://qposts.online/post/68
I believe, regrettably, Rand falls in the deal made category. If we re-elect these folks, shame on us.
The last line of defense, after Sen. Paul proposed sending it back to the states and that failed, was Pence. VP Pence was the kingpin deal maker. Read his defense on twitter, and recognize that he has already faced three threats on his life, and one on his wife's!
He believed it would set a bad precedent to remove the rights of states to certify elections, and the evidence of fraud was not up for debate in the Senate. (Nor was sending it back to the states, nor did he have a House member willing to pair up with him to object , any one of these would have been a way to accomplish the goal of denying certification Constitutionally.) The Tenth Amendment had already taken enough hits from prior presidents.
BillyJoe@BJisATtheBEACH (on twitter thread) gets it: "People here are missing the point of certification. Certification is not to weigh in on the legality of anything! Rather, certification is to AFFIRM STATES’ RIGHTS TO RUN THEIR OWN ELECTIONS. And this is done REGARDLESS OF ANY (state level) UNCONSTITUTIONALITY."
It was the state legislatures' responsibility to reclaim their rights and remove if necessary the governors involved, or secretaries of state.
https://twitter.com/RandPaul/status/1346936083351793665
Well then, what is the point of having a certification vote if it is merely formality?
Good point. The point is to affirm the rule of law. Sen. Paul was concerned about the precedent (Could Congress or a federal agency then dictate to the states how elections are run? e.g. Could the feds ban voter ID rules, in person voting...counting on Election Day alone) that would be set if they chose to decertify and the lack of a House member to support his proposal of sending the certification back to the states' legislatures limited his options because of Congressional rules in relation to elections.