Kamoolah Harris STILL has not resigned from the Senate as of yet. Let that sink in

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
It is now Jan 18th and Kamala Harris has indeed resigned her Senate seat but no response from the conspiracy theoriests. Lol
It's funny how the conspiracy theorists disappear when their conspiracy doesn't happen. Where are all the people who said the election 'fraud' would be exposed...in this court case or maybe when it gets to the SCOTUS or definitely no January 6....
 

Faithoverbelief

Well-known member
It's funny how the conspiracy theorists disappear when their conspiracy doesn't happen. Where are all the people who said the election 'fraud' would be exposed...in this court case or maybe when it gets to the SCOTUS or definitely no January 6....
Well Trump had better get busy he has till noon Wed to arrest everyone and be dressed up for his inauguration.☺😉
 

Truth7t7

Active member
It is now December 16th and Kamoolah Harris STILL has not resigned from the Senate as of yet. Let that sink in for a minute...

The Spreader must not be very convinced.


Reminded of when she dated the Mayor. He didn't divorce his wife for the spreader. He knew it was temporary.

Willie and Blanche Brown have never divorced????

Kamalala
didn't catch on that Willie was not committed to her?

Joe Xiden is putting on an act. Of course he is unemployed.
As of Jan 6th, Harris hasnt resigned,she voted on record for electors California, right along with Feinstein?
 

Thistle

Well-known member
So what? How is that relevant?
If you are one of the nominees of the two major parties, you can't be president or Vice President and a Senator too. Tying up a Senate seat is not morally right. If you believe you will be Vice President, it is immoral not to let the voters select someone who can serve out that whole term.
 

Michael R2

Active member
If you are one of the nominees of the two major parties, you can't be president or Vice President and a Senator too. Tying up a Senate seat is not morally right. If you believe you will be Vice President, it is immoral not to let the voters select someone who can serve out that whole term.
In cases where a senator steps down (or dies) the Governor of most states appoints the successor until the next general election (as happened with Loeffler in Georgia). In thirteen states a special election is called for. You can find list here:
Filling vacancies in the U.S. Senate - Ballotpedia
 

Thistle

Well-known member
In cases where a senator steps down (or dies) the Governor of most states appoints the successor until the next general election (as happened with Loeffler in Georgia). In thirteen states a special election is called for. You can find list here:
Filling vacancies in the U.S. Senate - Ballotpedia
I'm making a moral argument, not that there is no provision for the eventuality in the law. Do you understand the moral argument?
 

Michael R2

Active member
I'm making a moral argument, not that there is no provision for the eventuality in the law. Do you understand the moral argument?
Sorry, but I don't see it as a moral argument. The voters are not deprived of their right to choose their next Senator. Some must simply wait longer to do so based on their state's laws, in some cases with an interim senator insuring they have representation in the Senate until the next senator is elected.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
If you are one of the nominees of the two major parties, you can't be president or Vice President and a Senator too. Tying up a Senate seat is not morally right. If you believe you will be Vice President, it is immoral not to let the voters select someone who can serve out that whole term.
That's just ridiculous. She was a Senator up until the time her new role starts. She had no obligation - legal or moral - to resign her seat before then.

Further, that spurious argument has nothing to do with the particularly idiotic argument that the thread was created to make.
 

Thistle

Well-known member
Sorry, but I don't see it as a moral argument. The voters are not deprived of their right to choose their next Senator. Some must simply wait longer to do so based on their state's laws, in some cases with an interim senator insuring they have representation in the Senate until the next senator is elected.
So if I'm a Senator who is running for VP, and I prevent my constituents from making the choice between a candidate of either party, such that they are deprived of the choice, but I'm guaranteed my best outcome win or lose for national office, how am I not putting my interests ahead of my state constituents?
 

Thistle

Well-known member
That's just ridiculous. She was a Senator up until the time her new role starts. She had no obligation - legal or moral - to resign her seat before then.

Further, that spurious argument has nothing to do with the particularly idiotic argument that the thread was created to make.
Answered here.
 

Michael R2

Active member
So if I'm a Senator who is running for VP, and I prevent my constituents from making the choice between a candidate of either party, such that they are deprived of the choice, but I'm guaranteed my best outcome win or lose for national office, how am I not putting my interests ahead of my state constituents?
She's not preventing her constituents from making any choice. No matter when she gives up the office, the voters will not have a choice until 2022. Is it more or less moral to serve the constituents who voted her to do the job until she has to give it up? After all, once she gives it up, someone is named by the Governor. Someone not one constituent has a voice in. She was elected to do a job and did it until she had to give it up. If you want to talk moral, that's not too bad.
 
D

Diogenes

Guest
If you are one of the nominees of the two major parties, you can't be president or Vice President and a Senator too. Tying up a Senate seat is not morally right. If you believe you will be Vice President, it is immoral not to let the voters select someone who can serve out that whole term.

There's nothing immoral about remaining a senator will running in a presidential election as long still accomplish their duties as a senator. That's like quitting one job when you get an interview for a new. She has until she's sworn in as VP to remain a senator. As it's been noted, once the seat is resigned, it's filled.

It's nothing like say Jason Chaffetz retiring 6-months into a term to go work for FOX the day after his resignation was effective.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
So if I'm a Senator who is running for VP, and I prevent my constituents from making the choice between a candidate of either party, such that they are deprived of the choice, but I'm guaranteed my best outcome win or lose for national office, how am I not putting my interests ahead of my state constituents?
She hasn't done that. what on earth are you talking about? Whenever she quits, the Governor will appoint someone to fill out her term, and next election someone will be voted into it.
 

Thistle

Well-known member
She's not preventing her constituents from making any choice. No matter when she gives up the office, the voters will not have a choice until 2022. Is it more or less moral to serve the constituents who voted her to do the job until she has to give it up? After all, once she gives it up, someone is named by the Governor. Someone not one constituent has a voice in. She was elected to do a job and did it until she had to give it up. If you want to talk moral, that's not too bad.
How much of her efforts in 2020 were focused on being a legislator representing her state over and against getting the nomination for president? Because as you recall she assured us that Joe Biden was a racist. At least he was a racist until he got the nomination at which point his mere presence commanded her instantaneous loyalty. And from that point, how much of her efforts were focused on being a legislator representing her state over and against campaigning for the Harris, Biden ticket, as Joe put it?
 
Top