|
VitalSigns posted:Is overturning democracy okay then as long as the methods are legal? Nobody is pretending that isn't happening. Keep it in scope: How are you comparing extralegal violent action to rigged voting laws? And I thought you were largely of the opinion that voting doesn't work and isn't worthwhile anyways if I am recalling previous conversations with you correctly?
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2022 16:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 11:00 |
|
|
Cranappleberry posted:According to the constitution, yes. Morally/Ethically? The document is undemocratic, very much on purpose like you said. If we deflect the moral issue and resort to legalistic nitpicking that's going to be a problem when Republicans overturn elections legally. CommieGIR posted:Nobody is pretending that isn't happening. Keep it in scope: How are you comparing extralegal violent action to rigged voting laws? And I thought you were largely of the opinion that voting doesn't work and isn't worthwhile anyways if I am recalling previous conversations with you correctly? Re: voting I don't want to derail into electoralism, but my position was never that voting did nothing (voting did something: we all got $1400 checks, some bridges are going to get fixed, the president doesn't tweet anymore, etc), but that there are things you can't vote for: can't vote for a federal living wage thanks to our House Of Lords, can't vote to decrease the military budget or control drug prices, etc. And that's because of the undemocratic character of our system, if our system were more democratic, voting would do more.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2022 17:00
|
|
|
Anyways some interesting stuff in the indictment: the proud boys had their guns stashed just across the state lines ready to be brought in if Trump made a move to support them (instead of hiding like a huge pussy while the rest of the government worked around him to get the National Guard sent in to clear the Capitol) https://mobile.twitter.com/oneunderscore__/status/1481726769606520832?cxt=HHwWgMCrya-pk5ApAAAA I guess gun free zones do work after all, checkmate LaPierre 
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2022 17:23
|
|
|
Biden Vows Not To Forget Lessons Of January 6: ‘We Must Hang Mike Pence’ WASHINGTON—In a stirring speech at the U.S. Capitol Thursday morning, President Joe Biden vowed not to forget the lessons of the Jan. 6 riot, urging Americans to hang former Vice President Mike Pence. “We stand here today to declare that we will not back down in the face of tyranny, and we will gut the traitor Pence limb from limb for the way he turned on President Trump,” said Biden, who spent nearly 10 minutes of his prepared remarks encouraging the crowd to chant “Hang Mike Pence! Hang Mike Pence!” along with him. “What can we learn from the events of Jan. 6? The enduring lesson here is that we must drag Mike Pence from his home and string him up from the rafters for all to see. Where was he when his president needed him most? Where was he when the true patriots needed his help to stop the steal? The only way to heal this divided nation is to unite around the shared cause of killing Mike Pence for his many failures as vice president. God bless this country, and God bless you all.” Biden was then seen departing the Capitol with a pistol, vowing to take revenge on Mike Pence himself.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2022 19:58
|
|
|
finally, change we can believe in
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2022 20:57
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Ok and here's my point: if overturning elections is 100% legal and constitutional, then the only argument against Republicans doing that is the moral one. There were ways to change elections against popular voting built into the constitution while giving more power to aristocrats in low population states. Some of these weakened or changed over time but they ultimately led to the two party system dominance. The moral argument is against these ways but the republicans have cleverly found a way to use or reinforce the already legal undemocratic advantages. They have been working toward solving the issue of low amounts votes and changes in the constitution/election law both ways- legally and illegally. Daring the federal government to do something while getting courts filled with ideologues that will weaken or get rid of laws that hurt them electorally/make it difficult to legally rig elections at the local, state and federal levels. Also building unassailable strangle holds in states/areas where they have enough dominance to gain even a shory-lived trifecta (so long as their opponents remain feckless) That while simultaneously astroturfing and personally building a narrative that elections they don't win are illegitimate so they have more rationales to change laws to their advantage, potentially overturn elections and then have their voters turn to violence if that doesn't work. They then can disavow/deny those they amped up while reaping the rewards or else support them if it delivers them enough power so that they don't need to.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2022 22:31
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:This is what I think he is trying to say You are inserting your own framing and characterizations into my argument then acting like they are mine. Faithless electors are not "overturning an election", I went out of my way to point that out so the fact you turnaround and then paraphrase it as such makes me feel discussion with you is pointless. In our system we don't elect presidents, we elect electors. Because party interests have been firmly entrenched since the ink on the constitution was dry it has long been the case that by common practice there is no difference. This does not mean there is no difference. The constitution is explicitly designed that way as a check against a popular tyrant, and reading commentary from the people who wrote the constitution makes it really clear the electoral system is designed so that the electoral college can veto someone like Trump. Beyond that it seems really strange to call that "overturning an election" when Trump didn't win the election by votes and the only reason he "won" is the exact same system of electing electors. The electoral college dumping Trump would be perfectly in line with the results of the election and the rules under which the election was held. Pence refusing to certify valid votes is a violation of that process. An action that is theoretically possible if you go full calvinball does not mean that action is in line with the constitution. The government can put you in prison according to our Constitution as well, if it follows certain rules and laws. That doesn't mean if it throws you and prison without a trial and lies that you committed a crime that it's following the constitution. Context is important, you can't just ignore it so you can insert whatever characterization is convenient to the equivalence you want to assert.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2022 22:54
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:
This appears to be the problem making discussion frustrating. Could you define for me what you think a democratic election is and whether it's something you support? Also: if Republicans pass state laws to allow them to appoint electors and justify this by saying the Electoral College was designed to be a bulwark against a popular tyrant, would you agree this is fine and proper and good constitutional order? I find it VERY puzzling that you keep skipping this question VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 23:08 on Jan 14, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2022 23:04
|
|
|
Mercury_Storm posted:Biden Vows Not To Forget Lessons Of January 6: ‘We Must Hang Mike Pence’ If he'd been this decisive on the campaign trail I'd voted for him instead of the other guy!
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2022 01:38
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Is overturning democracy okay then as long as the methods are legal? I talked with some irl friends about this issue and eventually landed on the line they wouldn't cross - attempting to overturn an election is fine, unless the sitting president is publicly calling for it. Behind the scenes is fine, sam's with having agents and allies call for it in public. It's entirely about the optics of it being the current president. I believe they may modify this stance in 2024 but it's an interesting red line
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2022 07:30
|
|
|
Mercury_Storm posted:Biden Vows Not To Forget Lessons Of January 6: ‘We Must Hang Mike Pence’ Yeesh, talk about doing the right thing for the wrong reason.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2022 08:06
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:How does that compare to Trump's and the GOP's campaign to spread disinformation around voter fraud, suing states over voting machines, and riling up a violent crowd to march on the legislature? You keep comparing this to much more legal methods, but 1/6 was different because the lengths the GOP and its President chose to try to game the system to favor him, to the point of inventing fraud to try to support their case. Oh there was some fraud. Very little but some. Almost all of it committed by GOP voters, naturally. edit: beaten
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2022 15:54
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:This appears to be the problem making discussion frustrating. I think you're getting a bit lost in the weeds and are missing a crucial distinction. A democratic election is one means to an end of enacting policies. The policies are the end, not the election itself. Most people are opposing the Republicans because they are pursuing policy outcomes which have negative consequences for the vast majority of people. Instead of changing their policies to appeal to more voters, the Republicans now look for ways to deceive voters where they can, and bypass the voters where they can't deceive enough to win. In the long term, that sort of thing leads more and more people to feel like they have no say in their government or have been abandoned by their government. That leads people to wonder why they should follow the rules of a society which offers no support to them, and civil unrest ensues. That's why smart rulers who can see into the long term tend to avoid going down that path. But we're talking about Republicans, and if Republicans cared about things past the short term, they would not be Republicans. At this point, the United States is in such a fractured state that it's difficult to see a path forwards which preserves elections which are free, fair, and meaningful no matter what the Democratic party does.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2022 18:10
|
|
|
No I understand that distinction and I think you're pretty much correct. I support democracy because I believe letting the people pick the government is going to result in better more equitable policies than having billionaires or their stooges in the political elite pick the government. The problem with the US is not enough democracy: very little in the political sphere especially as you go higher up, and practically none in the workplace. This is why I oppose undemocratic arguments on principle. The Republicans' policies are unpopular so they, as you say, are looking for ways to bypass voters. This is why I object to legalistic arguments about how it's okay to bypass voters if it's allowed by the rules, (or worse moral arguments that the Electoral College is good because it prevents tyranny, when if you actually look at how the founders described tyranny it was basically a Sulla-like figure promising policies that would benefit the vast majority of people instead of just merchants and landed aristocrats, and surprise both times in my life that the Electoral College made a difference it was to select the richest candidate whose policies benefited the richest sliver of the population the most).
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2022 18:57
|
|
|
President Trump declared Pelosi cancelled the national guard deployment. She must answer this charge before the committee.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2022 17:47
|
|
|
https://mobile.twitter.com/JakeLahut/status/1482111133851033600
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2022 18:20
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:President Trump declared Pelosi cancelled the national guard deployment. She must answer this charge before the committee. I’ll answer for her. Pelosi has no authority over the national guard. HTH.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2022 20:17
|
|
|
So, about this... https://mobile.twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1482383205181366278 I suppose it's very legal and very cool, so nothing to worry about
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2022 20:27
|
|
|
She does have power over whether they'd be allowed into the Capitol zone I'm pretty sure, so I think the real rebuttal is "that never happened"
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2022 20:28
|
|
|
Murgos posted:I’ll answer for her. Pelosi has no authority over the national guard. What did you expect? Trump is full of poo poo (and he's poo poo)
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2022 20:32
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:So, about this... Why not? Besides throwing the dupes in jail for a few months to maybe a year and charging Meal Team Six with Sedition, I don't see this admin going after Bannon or Gullani or Trump for anything. They have had a year to do that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2022 20:53
|
|
|
e: wrongo threado
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2022 21:16
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:there's no denying the Clinton people put together a more productive attempt to subvert democracy i mean the most effective thing they did on that front was the Steele Dossier, no?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2022 22:49
|
|
|
Mia Wasikowska posted:i mean the most effective thing they did on that front was the Steele Dossier, no? Steele Dossier was started with conservative money and then Clinton bought it after the funding dried up once Trump became the nominee.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2022 02:43
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:This appears to be the problem making discussion frustrating. I think that if the electors overturned the winner of the popular vote their decision could be considered undemocratic. And the fact that they have that power mean they are an inherently undemocratic institution. All that said, Trump didn't win the popular vote so them overturning that election would actually have been more democratic than him winning.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2022 15:35
|
|
|
Electors have overturned the popular vote. This happened in 2000 and 2016 at least. I think what you mean is that if faithless electors over turned the popular vote. There is an argument to be made that faithless electors changing their vote to support the popular vote is actually more democratic than not. Edit: I completely misread your post. We are in agreement.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2022 15:56
|
|
|
I agree that Faithless Electors overturning the electoral vote in favor of the popular vote winner would be more democratic than not by the definition of democratic, but I don't see the relevance of that truism because that's not what the Hamilton Electors were trying to do.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2022 17:30
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1483940154473472005 Lmao, Felix Biederman's dictum holds true: the funniest possible outcome in politics will always win out. There's not much actual info on it yet, but the HuffPo piece on it says that, shockingly, Thomas dissented. A little more surprisingly, he was the only dissenting vote.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 00:38
|
|
|
Majorian posted:https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1483940154473472005 Thomas dissented outright and Justice Beer said he would have supported Trumps right to over rule the sitting presidents desire to release the documents due to a really convoluted application of executive privilege but since that didn’t apply here he couldn’t. “Well, you see if you release the documents the president said it’s okay to release then the president will be chilled from having open discussions with his advisors.” is trying really hard to get to a conclusion regardless of the path there. It’s only a couple of pages, most of it Beers note so it’s worth reading to see how ducking dumb a sitting justice can be. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a272_9p6b.pdf Edit: The constitutional convention deliberations were withheld from scrutiny for 30 years so obviously a former president can override the sitting presidents release of documents. Obviously. Murgos fucked around with this message at 03:27 on Jan 20, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 03:21
|
|
|
https://january6th.house.gov/sites/...es_Redacted.pdf Some highlights: quote:“The committee has information suggesting that President Trumps White House Counsel may have concluded that the actions President Trump directed Vice President Pence to take would violate the Constitution or would be otherwise illegal.5” Conspiracy charges? State of mind? Being told that what you are doing is illegal and doing it anyway is something special. Like “waging war on the US” special maybe? quote:“Apparently, certain White House staff believed that a live unscripted press appearance by the President in the midst of the Capitol Hill violence could have made the situation worse.” Well, those should be coming out soon. quote:“ the Committee has identified no evidence that President Trump issued any order, or took any other action, to deploy the guard that day. Nor does it appear that President Trump made any calls at all to the Department of Justice or any other law enforcement agency to request deployment of their personnel to the Capitol.” Oh, hmm, that’s some egregious dereliction of duty.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 20:48
|
|
|
Oh please tell me this will get prosecuted: Trump campaign officials, led by Rudy Giuliani, oversaw fake electors plot in 7 states https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/20/politics/trump-campaign-officials-rudy-giuliani-fake-electors/index.html
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 00:45
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:Oh please tell me this will get prosecuted: So Giuliani executed an Eastman plan to commit sedition? Both of whom were Trumps personal attorneys? And didn’t Meadows and that DoJ deputy AG call states to request they do this? This is the real conspiracy to commit sedition, the Jan 06 violence just elevates it to Treason.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 00:53
|
|
|
Murgos posted:So Giuliani executed an Eastman plan to commit sedition? Both of whom were Trumps personal attorneys? And didn’t Meadows and that DoJ deputy AG call states to request they do this? Justice delayed is justice denied. I hope Biden and Garland give up on the idea of ‘decorum’ and act on this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 01:09
|
|
|
quote:The Georgia prosecutor looking into possible attempts to interfere in the 2020 general election by former President Donald Trump and others has asked for a special grand jury to aid the investigation. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/georgia-prosecutor-investigating-possible-interference-in-2020-election-asks-for-special-grand-jury One step at a time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 02:04
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:Justice delayed is justice denied. Do you think for one single honest second that any POTUS would ever willingly set a precedent that their predecessor can be prosecuted for anything at all?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 05:22
|
|
|
I don’t expect Trump to ever see time in jail. Even in the unlikely event that a Jury convicts the appeals process is going to be so full of unique claims that by the time they’ve all been exhausted it could be 20 years from now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 14:51
|
|
|
some plague rats posted:Do you think for one single honest second that any POTUS would ever willingly set a precedent that their predecessor can be prosecuted for anything at all? I think asking the Georgia Sec. Of State to “find votes” is worthy of prosecution alone. Jan. 6th? Even more so. Also you know if the tables were turned a Republican POTUS would have prosecuted the Democrat exPresident.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 18:15
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:I think asking the Georgia Sec. Of State to “find votes” is worthy of prosecution alone. Jan. 6th? Even more so. I doubt that honestly, it’s much more valuable to not do it but pretend they really want to and whip up support with statements like “the Democrat CRIMINAL president is still walking free, the deep state is stopping us from delivering the justice America deserves!! We need to drain the swamp and root out the traitors in government!!!”, they get a campaigning talking point and also don’t set any precedent that the president is open to prosecution. Though tbh the Dems are so weak that even if it became politically possible to jail a president they’d never do it, “we need to let the country heal and move past this difficult time, not stay focused on the past” etc etc
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 19:42
|
|
|
DragQueenofAngmar posted:I doubt that honestly, it’s much more valuable to not do it but pretend they really want to and whip up support with statements like “the Democrat CRIMINAL president is still walking free, the deep state is stopping us from delivering the justice America deserves!! We need to drain the swamp and root out the traitors in government!!!”, they get a campaigning talking point and also don’t set any precedent that the president is open to prosecution. Though tbh the Dems are so weak that even if it became politically possible to jail a president they’d never do it, “we need to let the country heal and move past this difficult time, not stay focused on the past” etc etc We all thought that in regards to abortion, that it would keep getting trimmed here and there but that they would never dare get rid of their strongest long-term fundraising tool and talking point. But then we see what's working its way through the Supreme Court currently and welp. So we're learning too late that we should never assume that talking points are mere pretense and that they'll never set any new precedents, especially when the opposition has been largely taken over by die-hard True Believer nutjobs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 20:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 11:00 |
|
|
Ok, so in addition to the seizing of voting machines, Trump drafted these newly released "Remarks on National Healing" in anticipation of the insurrection, where he was planning on blaming Antifa? Which shows he had foreknowledge of the insurrection and the violence that would happen, and reportedly got mad when the QAnon Shaman and Confederate Flag fools were given so much screentime which blew his cover story? Isn't this a huge deal? Why aren't more people livid and enraged by this? Are we all just  at this point?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 21:23
|
|
