Theoretically, "Congress" could "simply rule" that only one 'candidate' is "permitted" to be on the ballot – using whatever convenient excuse then suits them.

And – "we have always known that." Yet, for the past more-than two hundred years, we have continued to pretend that "human beings" are not "what they really are, if but given a chance."

In many ways, today, I'm just reminded of the wisdom that was expressed in the final verses of "John 2."

Maybe, today, we are "being very unpleasantly reminded" of the extent to which some people will go, in order to secure "power" ... only for themselves. We are speaking of "human nature" at its very worst. Let us not continue to pretend, because all of us know better.

But I also perceive, among all of these "now very loud-talking people," both a definite myopia and an utter lack of knowledge of history. My guess is that these people "all grew up in ... an echo chamber." And, an entirely(!) privileged one. And so, they are now "dancing on the beach, [of course] 'drunk as a skunk.'" Waiting to go to the nearest restaurant and plunk down hundreds of dollars (why not?) for a meal. It is the only 'life' they have ever known.

None of them see that the water is rising at their feet. None of them have ever heard the word, 'tsunami.'

Being utterly ignorant of "history," they once again count themselves "exceptional." And there is no one "within their(!) earshot" to "tell them, 'No.'"

For example: "Benito Mussolini" was very much the same. Yet he and his mistress literally wound up: "upside-down on a gibbet, food for the ravens." (Ahhh ... the Italians always did have a certain flair for theater ...)

No, I do not espouse "violence," nor do I believe that "violence" is the only way that this matter can be resolved. But one thing is very sure to me: "these so-called 'elites' who have been 'ruling everything'" are just about to get their comeuppance. Because they are going "a Bridge too far," and don't even seem to know nor care. They very likely will soon discover that "the rule of law" matters a great deal to "hundreds of millions of people," but that it does not mean "what they think it does."

I'd disagree with that.

In the House they only need 5 Republicans to vote with them, and in the Senate they don't need any.

No, they cannot.

Never say "they cannot" when pure power is in play. There are a hundred "history lessons" over the courses of time to prove you otherwise.

We have already in very-recent history observed some of their successes: in 2020 causing every single Court, bottom to very-top, to "decline to hear" legal challenges, or to dismiss them for various administrative reasons. The charges that "election fraud," albeit a Federal crime, had actually occurred anywhere, were very-simply nullified.

(For instance, when several States brought a case before the Supreme Court, which according to "Article 3, Section 2," is "their Court of Primary Jurisdiction," they were simply told that they "had no standing." No further explanation was given, and thus the Plaintiffs were denied their fundamental legal right – "to be heard.")

The "Lawfare™" attorneys, who got their start by extorting major corporations to "settle" nuisance lawsuits, are far too "smug."

There are, right now, plenty of "elites" (sic ...) in this country who simply believe that everything is as they wish it to be. And the law which once prohibited "propaganda facing the American People" was conveniently nullified in a spending bill. But – "reality has a habit of showing up anyway." And I am quite confident that it won't show up in the form of a "Civil War 2.0."

"Couple thousand 'elites,' despite their job titles" versus "335 million actual people?" Those numbers don't look good . . . . . . and "civil war" is certainly not the likely resolution.

"We do not have to destroy this Country, in order to save it [from [itself|them]." We do not have to play by their rules.

You live in a country with checks and balances at every level. Congress cannot do what you seem to think it can do. That's not my opinion. It's fact.
Yeah, evidence is required in order to press charges. That's a fairly fundamental legal principle.
Methinks you better close Facebook...

So, sundialsvcs, I'd like to just straight up ask you outright..."Is it far off the mark to conclude that you think Trump did win the 2020 election? that there was voting fraud perpetrated to elect Biden?"

When "pure power" is in play, as we have now seen, "all bets are off." People who are burning down police stations on public TV are "peaceful protesters," while citizens who are actually protesting are "insurrectionists." Kindly notice the prominence of "a label." It's a very-fundamental propaganda tactic.

Actually, I have never used "Facebook," nor any other "social media," and I never will.

In all these years, I have only used "conventional forums" to foist my opinions upon people who don't want to hear them.

It is "absolutely and obviously true." And, when US States(!) tried to bring a lawsuit to that effect, in the only court they could use, they were "denied standing." When thousands of people showed up – as they had previously done for MLK (for example) – "to protest," they have been arrested and persecuted in classic "Banana Republic" fashion.

"Election Fraud" is a Federal crime. People have served actual prison terms for doing this in very small towns in very small elections. But, somehow, the very suggestion(!) that this crime took place continues to be ... "vilified and put down."

Exactly as you just did to me.

But never "put to trial." Hundreds of thousands of people now believe, rightly or wrongly, that "a Federal Crime has been committed," but there still has been no criminal trial. Why not? What is somebody afraid of?

The "Lawfare™ People" who have done this, plan to walk away with all of their power and wealth intact.

But: the Plaintiffs were denied the opportunity to even present(!) their "evidence."

Several "United States States" were simply told that "there is no Court" where you are allowed to bring your case for judgment.

And, in doing so, judgment was imposed against them without explanation.

"But, no." So sorry, "State of [X]," you simply have no power to have your evidence be heard nor weighed.

In 2019-2020, several US States, and several hundred thousand people, believed that a Federal Crime had just been committed against them, and so they "petitioned the Government for the Redress of Grievances." And, just look at what actually happened next.

Three years later: "Be Careful What You Wish For ..."

The reason I don't believe this is not because I would put it past the Democratic party to try it on ‒ this is after all the party that gave us terms like "gerrymander" and "Tammany Hall" ‒ but because I don't believe any political party could have organised something on the scale required. You can do that kind of thing in the London borough of Tower Hamlets, where Lutfur Rahman became mayor in 2010 with the help of a score or so of enthusiastic envelope stuffers, but not across the entire width of the USA. It would have taken huge coordination and a couple of thousand accomplices, all of whom have kept as silent as the grave about it ever since.

But I think Trump and his admirers believe it, and I can see why. Remember that 2020 was the covid election and the Democrats took covid very seriously. They were encouraged to vote by post and many of them did. Equally Trump encouraged his people to ignore covid and vote in person. So it was probably inevitable that Trump would be leading everywhere when the polling stations closed, but that Biden would catch up as the postal votes were counted. And, as they say nowadays, the optics of that are terrible.

Agreed. They might disagree behind closed doors, but no Republican in congress will vote in a way that would decide the GOP leaders to withdraw support the next time they are up for reelection. They will be threatened into standing with the party.

Oh dear. All this politcal vitriol and it's only early March. And there's European Elections, possibly UK, French & even Irish (by-)elections to come, along with who know where else .

It's going to be a long year. And the trouble about American elections is that they're not over when they're over. Time to avoid the General Forum.

You ignore the fact that most things require 60 senators, not a simple majority, to pass the Senate. They need at least 9 Republicans and all Democrat and independent Senate members to pass almost anything. (there are exceptions for some house policy and budget items)

Actually they WERE heard, but they failed to establish standing to bring the action.

It's all for amusement from here, 54 million feet away (or 16,500km in proper units).

Let them keep shuffling the deck chairs. At least we'll get more funny memes (about "fake nooze," "hamberders," and people holding their noses behind Trump) as the ship sinks.