Dangerous Rhetoric?

#151
#151
lawgator1 said:
Your comment represents the insidious nature of Trump's damage to Democracy. Don't like the result? Make false claims that harken back to doubts of a minor nature. Called out on the utter lack of proof? Why, it's part of the conspiracy that I don't have proof.

I can hear him now..... "Some people are saying...."
Click to expand...

Lol ... still living w/Trump derangement symptom in that empty head of yours.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider and AM64
#152
#152
lawgator1 said:
Your comment represents the insidious nature of Trump's damage to Democracy. Don't like the result? Make false claims that harken back to doubts of a minor nature. Called out on the utter lack of proof? Why, it's part of the conspiracy that I don't have proof.

I can hear him now..... "Some people are saying...."
Click to expand...

Kinda like Hillary telling us that the 2024 election is already being hijacked by the right? Or Stacy Abrahms already claiming Kemp suppressing the vote?

false claims? check
utter lack of proof? check
part of the conspiracy that I don't have proof? check

spare us the selective outrage
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman, StarRaider, 82_VOL_83 and 4 others
#154
#154
lawgator1 said:
Your comment represents the insidious nature of Trump's damage to Democracy. Don't like the result? Make false claims that harken back to doubts of a minor nature. Called out on the utter lack of proof? Why, it's part of the conspiracy that I don't have proof.

I can hear him now..... "Some people are saying...."
Click to expand...

Not really. I'm thinking much more back to the LBJ days. I don't trust the dem machine running any city and haven't for decades. I tend to equate innuendo that seems to be a commonly held believe as likely having a ring of truth to it. I don't think republicans are smart enough to be as crooked as dems when you get right down to it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider, 82_VOL_83 and W.TN.Orange Blood
#155
#155
AM64 said:
The concept of EC votes is fine. The concept of voting for electors who in turn cast votes reflecting the will of the voters is highly past it's expiration date. Maybe it was necessary at one time, but communications negated the need years ago. Get rid of electors and you get rid of the problem with faithless (or otherwise corrupted) electors. The whole system of voting needs to be reworked top to bottom. Too much of it is archaic, and some of the new stuff is shady as hell.
Click to expand...
We don't have a "problem" with faithless electors. There may be a few every election, but not enough to alter the outcome. What Trump attempted to do, went far beyond faithless electors, anyway. Trump wanted his Vice President to exclude votes from states they had lost, and set in motion a strategy which would overturn the outcome of the election, and keep them in power.

In a democratic system of elections, does it makes sense that one of the 4 major party candidates on the ballot would have the power to pick and choose which votes are counted during certification, and which votes aren't? This alternate elector scheme was beyond stupid ... and most Republicans remained silent while Trump was trying to bully Pence into making it happen.
 
#156
#156
volinbham said:
is there anyone on this board that doesn't think if the Rs take House and Senate that Dem leaders we'll claim the election wasn't fair?
Click to expand...
Is there anyone on this board who thinks Republicans won't be critical of Democrats for challenging the validity of an election loss? Even though they have spent two years doing exactly that.
 
#159
#159
BowlBrother85 said:
We don't have a "problem" with faithless electors. There may be a few every election, but not enough to alter the outcome. What Trump attempted to do, went far beyond faithless electors, anyway. Trump wanted his Vice President to exclude votes from states they had lost, and set in motion a strategy which would overturn the outcome of the election, and keep them in power.

In a democratic system of elections, does it makes sense that one of the 4 major party candidates on the ballot would have the power to pick and choose which votes are counted during certification, and which votes aren't? This alternate elector scheme was beyond stupid ... and most Republicans remained silent while Trump was trying to bully Pence into making it happen.
Click to expand...

I get that and what Trump supposedly wanted to do. My point is that when we go to the polls, we aren't actually voting for a candidate, we are voting for an elector who says he/she will cast a vote for a certain candidate. We no longer need intermediaries. The other part goes with cleaning up the whole election system top to bottom - inside and out. Make it transparent and a lot of questions go away. Do away with untrustworthy and untested vote by mail and a lot of questions go away. The weird part of all this is that we have a Constitution and Amendments addressing the top level voting stuff and a bunch of BS at the bottom ... we aren't checking the garbage in. In a way I agree with Trump. If a states control voting, and states/localities can't get their chit together and do things right, they don't deserve to have votes counted against decent people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider
#162
#162
volinbham said:
Yes Trump took it further - that doesn't change the fact that election denial is a bipartisan activity and it's ironic as hell for either party to claim it's an existential threat to democracy
Click to expand...

In a way it actually is. If you can't do a simple first step like elect representatives according to wishes of the electorate, then you really don't represent the will of the governed; and that undermines the whole concept.
 
  • Like
Reactions: volinbham
#163
#163
AM64 said:
and what Trump supposedly wanted to do.
Click to expand...
There is no need for the word "supposedly." Trump was very clear that he didn't want Mike Pence to include electoral votes from Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Georgia and Arizona when he was announcing the roll call during the certification of the electoral college vote on January 6, 2021. The fact that Pence was also on the ballot, and the enormity of the conflict of interest this would create, was evidently never considered by Trump.

Does Donald Trump want Kamala Harris to have this same power in January of 2025? I highly doubt it, but he never thinks that far ahead when he is doing these stupid things.
 
#164
#164
AM64 said:
How could anybody forget the Stacey Abrams refusal to accept an election. Talk about the elephant in the room.
Click to expand...

ha - she's already laying the ground work for her upcoming loss - suppression, racist laws and misinformation.

it's not really conceding if you claim the election was rigged against you
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider and AM64
#165
#165
BowlBrother85 said:
There is no need for the word "supposedly." Trump was very clear that he didn't want Mike Pence to include electoral votes from Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Georgia and Arizona when he was announcing the roll call during the certification of the electoral college vote on January 6, 2021. The fact that Pence was also on the ballot, and the enormity of the conflict of interest this would create, was evidently never considered by Trump.

Does Donald Trump want Kamala Harris to have this same power in January of 2025? I highly doubt it, but he never thinks that far ahead when he is doing these stupid things.
Click to expand...

For sake of argument let's say that is exactly what Trump wanted; do you actually think the courts wouldn't have gotten involved ... checks and balances? Should we count a vote if it is fraudulent - a single vote can be rejected for a number of reasons; should the concept not apply more broadly to a district or even a state? If you can't manage to oversee voting and manage to count the ballots correctly, you really shouldn't be out on the street.

About the stupid precedents: how many times has that come back to bite congressional dems? I'm still waiting for a different congressional mix to look ay joe's reallocation of funding like dems did Trump.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83
#166
#166
AM64 said:
For sake of argument let's say that is exactly what Trump wanted; do you actually think the courts wouldn't have gotten involved ... checks and balances?
Click to expand...
The best that Republicans can normally do when defending this is with some form of, "It would never have worked." As if that makes everything okay.

You can't pretend to care about preserving democracy, if you aren't willing to denounce a stunt like Trump's alternate elector scheme as it is happening. For the most part, Republicans either supported Trump's alternate elector scheme, or they remained quiet like cowards.
 
#167
#167
BowlBrother85 said:
The best that Republicans can normally do when defending this is with some form of, "It would never have worked." As if that makes everything okay.

You can't pretend to care about preserving democracy, if you aren't willing to denounce a stunt like Trump's alternate elector scheme as it is happening. For the most part, Republicans either supported Trump's alternate elector scheme, or they remained quiet like cowards.
Click to expand...

No. My answer would be that it would have caused the courts to be involved and take a look at the mess. There's an issue in PA right now about mail in ballots and the courts taking a look to decide if people who can't follow simple instructions should have a vote worth counting. I have a more fundamental issue "How do you prove that the person allegedly voting with a mail in ballot is the person who actually cast the vote?" Which goes back to why can't people just vote in person like we've done for centuries, so that we at least have some assurance the correct person voted? After all, we have voting season - not election day; what's so difficult about doing what we always did before ... on a single day.
 
#168
#168
AM64 said:
No. My answer would be that it would have caused the courts to be involved and take a look at the mess. There's an issue in PA right now about mail in ballots and the courts taking a look to decide if people who can't follow simple instructions should have a vote worth counting. I have a more fundamental issue "How do you prove that the person allegedly voting with a mail in ballot is the person who actually cast the vote?" Which goes back to why can't people just vote in person like we've done for centuries, so that we at least have some assurance the correct person voted? After all, we have voting season - not election day; what's so difficult about doing what we always did before ... on a single day.
Click to expand...
But Covid....but ID (finger prints are free)....but work (that's a laugh)....but,but,but
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#169
#169
AM64 said:
No. My answer would be that it would have caused the courts to be involved and take a look at the mess. There's an issue in PA right now about mail in ballots and the courts taking a look to decide if people who can't follow simple instructions should have a vote worth counting. I have a more fundamental issue "How do you prove that the person allegedly voting with a mail in ballot is the person who actually cast the vote?" Which goes back to why can't people just vote in person like we've done for centuries, so that we at least have some assurance the correct person voted? After all, we have voting season - not election day; what's so difficult about doing what we always did before ... on a single day.
Click to expand...
You are trying to change the subject.

What you are talking about in Pennsylvania (accurately described or not), has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the Vice President of the United States has the power, during certification, to avoid including electoral votes of the President's choosing. If that had gone to the Supreme Court, it wouldn't have drug other matters along with it.
 
#170
#170
BowlBrother85 said:
You are trying to change the subject.

What you are talking about in Pennsylvania (accurately described or not), has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the Vice President of the United States has the power, during certification, to avoid including electoral votes of the President's choosing. If that had gone to the Supreme Court, it wouldn't have drug other matters along with it.
Click to expand...

Am I? You see if someone is accused of committing a crime, that person may be arrested and held until trial - at least usually monitored until trial. How is it different to say that if voting fraud is suspected that the process should be put on hold until investigated and cleared or confirmed? Trump was talking institutional failure in places - that's pretty serious, and there seemed to be some credibility to the claim. Remember that guy Hanging Chad? He got his day in court and some fancy recounting. Is correct and verified too much to ask? Is voting less important than sports where play is held to review a call?
 
#171
#171
AM64 said:
How is it different to say that if voting fraud is suspected that the process should be put on hold until investigated and cleared or confirmed? Trump was talking institutional failure in places - that's pretty serious, and there seemed to be some credibility to the claim.
Click to expand...
There was never any credibility to his claims. That's the problem.

He moved from one lie to the next. Do you understand that Trump's legal counsel did not even allege fraud had taken place in their court filings? The questions that they raised were strictly concerning jurisdiction and procedure. Trump's legal team did not allege voter fraud in court, let alone prove it. The fact is, Trumps legal team would make allegations on cable news that they were not bold enough to ever make in court documents, because they didn't want to place their law licenses at risk.
 
#172
#172
volinbham said:
she's already laying the ground work for her upcoming loss
Click to expand...
You mean she is claiming without proof, that an election has been rigged against her, before the election has even been held because she wants to have a ready-made excuse handy if she loses???

Isn't that exactly what Donald Trump did prior to both the 2016 and 2020 Presidential Elections?
 
#173
#173
lawgator1 said:
Your comment represents the insidious nature of Trump's damage to Democracy. Don't like the result? Make false claims that harken back to doubts of a minor nature. Called out on the utter lack of proof? Why, it's part of the conspiracy that I don't have proof.

I can hear him now..... "Some people are saying...."
Click to expand...
Might need to check in with Prophet Hillary and her vision she’s reporting on 2024 before the midterms are over.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#175
#175
Listening to MSNBC on an election day to get the other view and instead of talking elections of their candidates they choose to go Coffee with Trump. Another reason their audience is lost today wondering why they are about to get replaced in power.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BreatheUT
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top