2024 ELECTION THREAD
The next presidential race will be here soon! Please see current Bovada odds. Thoughts?
He didn't dissuade them. Let's put it that way. 😀
And no, this isn't normal to ask a SOS to find votes, or throw votes away. That's why he recorded the call. You're being blatantly dishonest, and everyone in here see's right through it.
Did Trump ask Pence to reject the vote, and not certify the election?
yes I think he asked Pence to use his VP powers to stop the certification/substitute slates.
the issue was so unclear congress fixed it later to clarify the actual role of the VP is just cerimoniale (which means that when trump attempted it, it wasn't obvious that was the case).
trump attempt to overturn the election on technicalities made the republic stronger in that case.
imagine someone actually smart, with actual allies in all key positions, attempting the same. thanks to trump's clumsy attempt that's fixed.
For the purpose of establishing a baseline, do you believe that any of the following statements are untrue:
1. Trump lost the election.
2. There was never any evidence of fraud on a scale that could have affected the outcome of the election.
3. Despite a lack of evidence, Trump continued for months to try and convince the public that the election was rigged. These efforts included making factual assertions that his lawyers were unwilling
1) yes in 2020. that's especially true because even if you want to stretch the claims they make to the maximum, he could at most flip one state which wouldn't be enough. so it's a very solid yes.
2) yes otherwise I wouldn't confidently claim 1)
3) yes we agreed Giuliani among others made a mockery of the law in his futile attempts to litigate some of that
4) no I am not so sure he attempted to have them act unlawfully. I actually believe many states give (maybe because of "gentlemen agreement" beliefs) insane powers to specific key people, or legislatures, to actually overturn the result of the populat vote in presidential elections. that is true even if those powers were never used to overturn the results.
5) yes , even if 4) isn't necessarily a set of unlawful requests, certainly no one before him attempted to use those provisions like he did
6) yes, to the point he actually wants to instill in the public the idea that the party of immigration never believed in democratic norms. remember the main idea is democrats steal by getting illegals to vote. they import illegal voters otherwise they couldn't win.
even if a kernel of truth exists in that (a legal one: democrats want to naturalize immigrants to gain votes; and a technical one: illegals count for the census and house seats, so states that take in many of them have more power), Trump attempt is to delegitimize immigrationists democratically.
if you are pro immigration in that model you want to destroy natives using immigrants to pass policies that damage natives , illegally.
that's trump nativist narrative. it's wrong today as it was when protestants decried a catholic invasion by Irish and Italian was attempted to overthrow america.
not a new dynamic in American politics, but a really toxic one.
criticizing this appropriately is a moral imperative. I do regularly when I talk with maga (even here, I had to defend skilled immigration benefits with some nativist).
yes I think he asked Pence to use his VP powers to stop the certification/substitute slates.
the issue was so unclear congress fixed it later to clarify the actual role of the VP is just cerimoniale (which means that when trump attempted it, it wasn't obvious that was the case).
trump attempt to overturn the election on technicalities made the republic stronger in that case.
agone someone actually smart, with actual allies in all key positions
lol... ya, it's not fixed (but they did "clarify the VP's role), and they've had 4 more years to plan. They have more fake electors in place, elected or placed people in key positions that would be friendlier to Trump's attempts next time.
And there will be a next time. A failed coup attempt is just practice if you don't actually stop the people who did it the first time, from trying again.
desiring the demise of someone of your tribe who betrayed you (ie who didn't do everything he could to help you in time of need) is tribalism, not fascism.
newsflash:
many attitudes you can despise deeply with present day morals, aren't fascism, rather deep seated propensities of human beings since forever.
trump is more visceral and basic than fascism. you guys lack the words to describe that because you believed the arc of history narrative was true, you weren't even prepared for a trump to reach significant power.
lol... ya, it's not fixed (but they did "clarify the VP's role), and they've had 4 more years to plan. They have more fake electors in place, elected or placed people in key positions that would be friendlier to Trump's attempts next time.
And there will be a next time. A failed coup attempt is just practice if you don't actually stop the people who did it the first time, from trying again.
the Senate VP certifying role is fixed.
ECRA was passed to fix a lot of technicalities regarding states EC certifications and whatnot
the republic actually answered and became stronger, if you didn't hear about it, you have to hear it from me :-)
6) yes, to the point he actually wants to instill in the public the idea that the party of immigration never believed in democratic norms. remember the main idea is democrats steal by getting illegals to vote. they import illegal voters otherwise they couldn't win.
even if a kernel of truth exists in that (a legal one: democrats want to naturalize immigrants to gain votes; and a technical one: illegals count for the census and house seats, s
Ya... Democrats don't believe in democratic norms, because they are welcoming to LEGAL immigrants. Illegal immigrants, cannot vote.
Never mind that Republicans gerrymander their districts so absurdly, even conservative justices have had to rule against them (sometimes). Republicans scrub voter roles using conservative governors, and illegally remove voters w/ latino, or black sounding last names.
Oh... and there's the fact Republicans attempted a coup, and they want to remove the "deep state", and throw out democracy.
But dems are the ones that are against democratic norms. Right buddy. I guess people can make up whatever stories they want.
the Senate VP certifying role is fixed.
ECRA was passed to fix a lot of technicalities regarding states EC certifications and whatnot
https://campaignlegal.org/update/states-...
the republic actually answered and became stronger, if you didn't hear about it, you have to hear it from me :-)
I'm aware of what was changed. Nobody I know of thinks this is enough. It's a start, and that's it. There's still many ways to undermine democracy, and Trump and company will attempt every way they can because they are fascist.
I'm aware of what was changed. Nobody I know of thinks this is enough. It's a start, and that's it. There's still many ways to subdue democracy, and Trump and company will attempt every way they can.
The best person to ask is JD Vance. He said he would have gone along with Jan 6. He's said nothing about this changing what he would have done.
Ya... Democrats don't believe in democratic norms, because they are welcoming to LEGAL immigrants. Illegal immigrants, cannot vote.
Never mind that Republicans gerrymander their districts so absurdly, even conservative justices have had to rule against them (sometimes). Republicans scrub voter roles using conservative governors, and illegally remove voters w/ latino, or black sounding last names.
Oh... and there's the fact Republicans attemp
can you read what I wrote again? I presented the nativist thesis and I rejected it.
don't comment in bad faith pls it's just a waste of time.
removing all power from unelected civil servants is pro democracy, it's incredible anyone who doesn't answer directly to voters, outside of the judiciary, has any power at all. the totality of power should reside with people who constantly have to answer to voters, if you want a democracy.
every pro democracy advocate should consider given ANY power to "agencies" a first order moral crime to be avoided under all circumstances. the idea of "independent agencies" with any power to decide anything about any matter related with the lives of citizens is a direct attack to democratic values.
everyone who has any power to limit citizens freedoms or to affect their lives in any way should pass through elections (except the judiciaries, which are a special, constitutionally recognized branch, with special rules).
I'm aware of what was changed. Nobody I know of thinks this is enough. It's a start, and that's it. There's still many ways to undermine democracy, and Trump and company will attempt every way they can because they are fascist.
more work to do? probably ye.
but some work got done, it's time you guys wake up and start building a system that can survive horrible people getting power.
you survived FDR concentration camps for hundreds of thousands of citizens.
you can survive trump and build an even better system.
you are even surviving with a completely incapacitated commander in chief for months
can you read what I wrote again? I presented the nativist thesis and I rejected it.
don't comment in bad faith pls it's just a waste of time.
removing all power from unelected civil servants is pro democracy, it's incredible anyone who doesn't answer directly to voters, outside of the judiciary, has any power at all. the totality of power should reside with people who constantly have to answer to voters, if you want a democracy.
every pro demo
Ok, fine... your rejection wasn't completely clear because you went on about immigration.
You have a warped view of government because Italy has taken some aspects of its government too far. But your posts show you have a, "throw the baby out w/ the bathwater", mentality, instead of acknowledging that some government is NEEDED, otherwise you have blatant oligarchic rule. Right now in most countries, it's bad enough that we have soft oligarchy. Finding the correct balance of government should be the imperative, instead of insisting that almost none should exist.
desiring the demise of someone of your tribe who betrayed you (ie who didn't do everything he could to help you in time of need) is tribalism, not fascism.
newsflash:
many attitudes you can despise deeply with present day morals, aren't fascism, rather deep seated propensities of human beings since forever.
trump is more visceral and basic than fascism. you guys lack the words to describe that because you believed the arc of history narrative
Trump not caring about the law and trying to take power after an election he lost fits under the umbrella of fascism. If he wanted Pence to be murdered and said things knowing/hoping as president that it might happen also fits.
Trump not caring about the law and trying to take power after an election he lost fits under the umbrella of fascism. If he wanted Pence to be murdered and said things knowing/hoping as president that it might happen also fits.
not sure who told you that taking power illegally is fascism, but fascism got to power with the popular vote and then used the power to eliminate democracy.
taking power illegally happened countless of times before Mussolini was even born and it's kinda silly to use fascism to describe what Germans , Romans, and Chinese leaders routinely did
Ok, fine... your rejection wasn't completely clear because you went on about immigration.
You have a warped view of government because Italy has taken some aspects of its government too far. But your posts show you have a, "throw the baby out w/ the bathwater", mentality, instead of acknowledging that some government is NEEDED, otherwise you have blatant oligarchic rule. Right now in most countries, it's bad enough that we have soft oligarch
I want some government I am not an anarchist, I am what these days is called a minarchist, but can also be called a Classic liberal.
as I said more than once, I want the count of government which was common in late 19th century in the USA or Australia.
btw an oligarchy will always happen no matter the orga izational system, it's an inherent byproduct of pyramidal hierarchy which is an unavoidable element of all complex societies.
a few people will always have a disastrously large influence in society.
they did and do in social democratic France, they did in the communist USSR, they did in early stages USA, they did in 1955 in the USA and they do today in the USA.
and in China and in Japan and in Indonesia and everywhere else.
they did in ancient Greek polis, they did in Rome both during the republic and with the empire, they did in medieval Florence and they did among the Atzecs and the Incas.
oligarchy is what happens every time. you get to choose a bit which incentives the oligarchs have to work for, and that's about it.
the correct balance of power is found accepting that state power will always be used for a few people interests. against everyone else. every time.
but still a few things need to be done at the state levels yes. so you build a system to do that, decentralized as much as possible, with competition among the instituted power, and no way to achieve centralized power. state rights in the American system, a weak federal government with very few things it can do.
at least you can just move away from a **** hole state in that model if things go badly.
you accept few places could rot and that's ok and preferable to having centralized power to "fix" them, because real significant centralized power is the biggest threat of all
not sure who told you that taking power illegally is fascism, but fascism got to power with the popular vote and then used the power to eliminate democracy.
taking power illegally happened countless of times before Mussolini was even born and it's kinda silly to use fascism to describe what Germans , Romans, and Chinese leaders routinely did
lol....You can define fascism so narrow that only Mussolini was fascist just like you can define prime so narrow that only 3 is prime. But that would be stupid. I grade you on a curve but this is bad even for a guy I primarily know for being too innumerate to follow polling.
