(09-18-2024 08:00 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(09-17-2024 03:54 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(09-16-2024 12:24 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(09-16-2024 12:19 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(09-16-2024 12:11 PM)WKUApollo Wrote:  Based on what this loser said in court today about his limited finances, how the heck was he living in Hawaii? Hawaii has the highest cost of living in the US and one of the highest in the world.

He was a builder. Most likely got paid by non-profits to build homeless housing. He built "tiny homes".

He also said in court he only made about $3K a month. And a piece I read said he was working in Hawaii "mostly as a handyman." And his GF's house doesn't look like much in the photo I saw.

Yet he supposedly spent 6 months in Ukraine, and he flew from Hawaii to Florida to try to kill Trump?

Something isn't adding up.

And where he get the AK?

Put that in the carry-on from Hawai'i?

not sure about that. Backpacks of ceramic tiles as well?

nope. Not buying this ish (again) at all. This goes waaaaaay deeper.

Sad.

You can fly an unloaded firearm in checked in a locked case, and some amount of ammunition in original boxes or plastic ammo boxes.

Or you could go to a gun store and just buy one with your driver license after landing.

An AK-47?

(09-18-2024 08:52 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(09-18-2024 08:00 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(09-17-2024 03:54 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(09-16-2024 12:24 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(09-16-2024 12:19 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  He was a builder. Most likely got paid by non-profits to build homeless housing. He built "tiny homes".

He also said in court he only made about $3K a month. And a piece I read said he was working in Hawaii "mostly as a handyman." And his GF's house doesn't look like much in the photo I saw.

Yet he supposedly spent 6 months in Ukraine, and he flew from Hawaii to Florida to try to kill Trump?

Something isn't adding up.

And where he get the AK?

Put that in the carry-on from Hawai'i?

not sure about that. Backpacks of ceramic tiles as well?

nope. Not buying this ish (again) at all. This goes waaaaaay deeper.

Sad.

You can fly an unloaded firearm in checked in a locked case, and some amount of ammunition in original boxes or plastic ammo boxes.

Or you could go to a gun store and just buy one with your driver license after landing.

An AK-47?

I work internationally, with many of those oversees coworkers flying in and staying in the states for periods of time. You'd be surprised the number of them that are gun collectors and take all sorts of guns back with them home.

(09-18-2024 08:21 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-17-2024 06:13 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(09-17-2024 05:29 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-17-2024 03:56 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(09-17-2024 03:25 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Bummer. Maybe Trump *shouldnt* have tried to short circuit the counting of electors in '20 to benefit himself with no legal basis.

Yes, I absolutely call that a threat to democracy. Should people simply cover their heads up with a hood and not note that? Seriously?

And not even getting into the issue of throwing out a metric ton of false comments about the election, and using that to instigate a riot at the point of counting the ballots.

Maybe if he hadnt pulled *that* ****, there wouldnt be reason to call him a 'threat to democracy'. Imagine that.

They called him that before 1-6-24 and you know it. I guess Kamala is a threat based on her past comments on the 1st and 2nd amendments.

No, they didnt say he was a threat to democracy prior to 1/6/21. He definitely earned that moniker then.

I am absolutely against Kamala's comments on 'assault rifles'. But nice strawman. And an awesome diversion into another issue completely.

Try again.
Threat to Democracy.

Quote: The evidence I cite in this article suggests that Trump is an existential threat to those norms. Yet he continues to enjoy strong backing from a little more than 40 percent of the American public and from 85 to 90 percent of the Republican Party. How can this be?

Here are ten basic democratic norms that Trump fails to comply with or outright repudiates: (1) respect for an independent judiciary, (2) support for a free and independent press, (3) more generally, the importance of independent actors within government, as opposed to actors who simply owe loyalty to the president; (4) a commitment to the peaceful resolution of political disputes rather than encouraging violence; (5) respect for the legitimacy of elections; (6) not using the legal system to attack political opponents; (7) not expressing admiration for foreign autocrats; (8) preserving transparency within government; (9) the maintenance of a sharp separation between the private interests of public servants and the public good; (10) at least a minimal commitment to truth telling. The remainder of this article elaborates upon Trump’s transgressions against these foundational norms of democracy.

Did this guy just describe the Democratic Party?
1) stacking the court, intimidating jurists, threatening impeachments, having senate determine standards
2) WH, FBI and DOJ suppressing speech
3) This IS the threat to Democracy when the government is not responsive to elections
4) assassinations, Biden talking about beating Trump, Kamala talking about killing him in an elevator, FBI raids, etc., etc.
5) trying to stop verification of voters and voter roles and investigation of discrepancies.
6) Lawfare, lawfare, lawfare
7) This is the threat to Democracy when people can't express honest opinions (and what he was really doing was buttering them up to get what he wanted from them)
8) Democrats have fought any transparency. And they don't even let you see the president or vice-president. We have no idea who is running the country.
9) Hunter Biden. Nancy's profits. It goes on endlessly.
10) Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, most of the Democrats in Congress...

Good post

I don’t view Trump as a threat to democracy. He has zero chance at winning reelection in 2028.

He will sign overreaching EOs just like every single President before him.

His current movement is supplemented by people like Musk and RFK who will absolutely call out his BS when it happens.

I wasn’t a fan of his J6 actions, but we already had enough checks and balances to thwart overturning elections. The Founders knew this could happen and set it up for a reason. This is exactly why we have an Electoral College, so that the federal government cannot simply remain in power because it deems so. Does the left not understand this concept?

Not to mention, that riot was coming off a year of left wing rioting, so there is not a moral high ground in either direction.

(09-18-2024 08:44 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Im looking forward to what *you* think is an 'acceptable' description of Trump trying shitcan the votes of 7 states and roughly 25 million people for no reason other than his fing ego problems, and trying to replace it with stuff he literally pulled out of fing thin air. That is since 'threat to democracy' is so utterly misdescriptive and incendiary.

I call it today (and I called it then) reckless and disgraceful. He brought great shame upon himself and upon anyone who stood with him in that setting.

But not criminal, at least not be Donald Trump. It was not incitement and everything said and done, although disgraceful, was entirely protected under the First Amendment. Those who acted upon it - - stupidly following for the most part federal plants such as Ray Epps and the dozens (if not hundreds) of other unnamed cooperating traitors - - are the ones who broke the law. And they have been punished. Severely.

That this has become the sole basis on which you disregard every other aspect of the coming election is your right. But it doesn't reflect well upon your intellect.

(09-18-2024 09:07 AM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  I don’t view Trump as a threat to democracy. He has zero chance at winning reelection in 2028.

He will sign overreaching EOs just like every single President before him.

His current movement is supplemented by people like Musk and RFK who will absolutely call out his BS when it happens.

I wasn’t a fan of his J6 actions, but we already had enough checks and balances to thwart overturning elections. The Founders knew this could happen and set it up for a reason. This is exactly why we have an Electoral College, so that the federal government cannot simply remain in power because it deems so. Does the left not understand this concept?

Not to mention, that riot was coming off a year of left wing rioting, so there is not a moral high ground in either direction.

So trying to throw out the certified electoral slates of 7 states, all submitted within the safe harbor, simply.... because... isnt an attack on the democratic process?

Trying to replace those certified electoral slates of 7 states, all submitted within the safe harbor, and representing the will and choice of 25 million citizens simply.... because... is not an attack on the democratic process?

Simply based on the above I am comfortable saying that when Trump urged/ told/ tried to persuade Pence to do the steps above, that was a *serious* threat to democracy.

You said 'this is why we have an Electoral College, so that the government cannot simply remain in power because it deems it so'.

Yet Trump explicitly attacked the process of the Electoral College, and tried to remain in power simply because he deemed it so. You seem to have missed that point.

In honesty, I think your comments bolded above are accurate. But you dont seem to have a handle on the actions that Trump tried to have happen, and what Trump did in at least one portion of his actions was an attempt to subvert or short circuit that process.

As to your trying to make justification of the J6 riot -- I dont buy your comment that 'since one side did it, I get a freebie'.

(09-18-2024 09:18 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-18-2024 09:07 AM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  I don’t view Trump as a threat to democracy. He has zero chance at winning reelection in 2028.

He will sign overreaching EOs just like every single President before him.

His current movement is supplemented by people like Musk and RFK who will absolutely call out his BS when it happens.

I wasn’t a fan of his J6 actions, but we already had enough checks and balances to thwart overturning elections. The Founders knew this could happen and set it up for a reason. This is exactly why we have an Electoral College, so that the federal government cannot simply remain in power because it deems so. Does the left not understand this concept?

Not to mention, that riot was coming off a year of left wing rioting, so there is not a moral high ground in either direction.

So trying to throw out the certified electoral slates of 7 states, all submitted within the safe harbor, simply.... because... isnt an attack on the democratic process?

Trying to replace those certified electoral slates of 7 states, all submitted within the safe harbor, and representing the will and choice of 25 million citizens simply.... because... is not an attack on the democratic process?

Simply based on the above I am comfortable saying that when Trump urged/ told/ tried to persuade Pence to do the steps above, that was a *serious* threat to democracy.

You said 'this is why we have an Electoral College, so that the government cannot simply remain in power because it deems it so'.

Yet Trump explicitly attacked the process of the Electoral College, and tried to remain in power simply because he deemed it so. You seem to have missed that point.

In honesty, I think your comments bolded above are accurate. But you dont seem to have a handle on the actions that Trump tried to have happen, and what Trump did in at least one portion of his actions was an attempt to subvert or short circuit that process.

When I said I didn’t agree with his actions on J6, I’m referring to the elector scheme and pressuring Kemp to find the votes. I’m not dying on that hill. But in practice, the only way the electors get thrown out is if other governors decide to authorize it, which they didn’t. Hence the electoral college point. That’s the check and balance and why it exists.

Presidents attack institutions and try to usurp their power all of the time in different ways, but there are checks and balances. Not a peep when that occurs.

I actually believe you have the most consistent viewpoint on the constitution of many here, and I can respect that. But Trump was never charged with insurrection because it’s very difficult to prove. Mostly because it was an unprecedented situation

(09-18-2024 09:16 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  

(09-18-2024 08:44 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Im looking forward to what *you* think is an 'acceptable' description of Trump trying shitcan the votes of 7 states and roughly 25 million people for no reason other than his fing ego problems, and trying to replace it with stuff he literally pulled out of fing thin air. That is since 'threat to democracy' is so utterly misdescriptive and incendiary.

I call it today (and I called it then) reckless and disgraceful. He brought great shame upon himself and upon anyone who stood with him in that setting.

But not criminal, at least not be Donald Trump. It was not incitement and everything said and done, although disgraceful, was entirely protected under the First Amendment. Those who acted upon it - - stupidly following for the most part federal plants such as Ray Epps and the dozens (if not hundreds) of other unnamed cooperating traitors - - are the ones who broke the law. And they have been punished. Severely.

That this has become the sole basis on which you disregard every other aspect of the coming election is your right. But it doesn't reflect well upon your intellect.

Im not making a comment on the criminality. Im making the comment in light of the apparent terrible thing to note it as 'a threat to democracy'.

No, trying to swap out valid, certified slates of electors for ones that are false is *not* protected by the 1st Amendment, good sir.

But nice try at changing the subject. That is changing from the precise subject of the act of "trying shitcan the votes of 7 states and roughly 25 million people for no reason other than his fing ego problems, and trying to replace it with stuff he literally pulled out of fing thin air" to a soliloquy about Trump's speech on 1/6 and his incitement of the crowd to riot.

I agree that Trump's speech there may very well be protected by the 1st Amendment. His trying to talk Pence into swapping out voted for Biden for votes for him isnt. Which I outlined for you at the start.

(09-18-2024 09:25 AM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(09-18-2024 09:18 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-18-2024 09:07 AM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  I don’t view Trump as a threat to democracy. He has zero chance at winning reelection in 2028.

He will sign overreaching EOs just like every single President before him.

His current movement is supplemented by people like Musk and RFK who will absolutely call out his BS when it happens.

I wasn’t a fan of his J6 actions, but we already had enough checks and balances to thwart overturning elections. The Founders knew this could happen and set it up for a reason. This is exactly why we have an Electoral College, so that the federal government cannot simply remain in power because it deems so. Does the left not understand this concept?

Not to mention, that riot was coming off a year of left wing rioting, so there is not a moral high ground in either direction.

So trying to throw out the certified electoral slates of 7 states, all submitted within the safe harbor, simply.... because... isnt an attack on the democratic process?

Trying to replace those certified electoral slates of 7 states, all submitted within the safe harbor, and representing the will and choice of 25 million citizens simply.... because... is not an attack on the democratic process?

Simply based on the above I am comfortable saying that when Trump urged/ told/ tried to persuade Pence to do the steps above, that was a *serious* threat to democracy.

You said 'this is why we have an Electoral College, so that the government cannot simply remain in power because it deems it so'.

Yet Trump explicitly attacked the process of the Electoral College, and tried to remain in power simply because he deemed it so. You seem to have missed that point.

In honesty, I think your comments bolded above are accurate. But you dont seem to have a handle on the actions that Trump tried to have happen, and what Trump did in at least one portion of his actions was an attempt to subvert or short circuit that process.

When I said I didn’t agree with his actions on J6, I’m referring to the elector scheme and pressuring Kemp to find the votes. I’m not dying on that hill. But in practice, the only way the electors get thrown out is if other governors decide to authorize it, which they didn’t. Hence the electoral college point. That’s the check and balance and why it exists.

Presidents attack institutions and try to usurp their power all of the time in different ways, but there are checks and balances. Not a peep when that occurs.

I actually believe you have the most consistent viewpoint on the constitution of many here, and I can respect that. But Trump was never charged with insurrection because it’s very difficult to prove. Mostly because it was an unprecedented situation

Im talking specifically here about his trying to get Pence to shitcan the votes of 7 states, and replace them with his.

As to the bolded - I agree. That is why I talk about Trump being a threat to democracy more precisely in in his efforts to get Pence to throw out the votes of WI, MI, PA, GA, NM, AZ, and NV -- without any basis. And then tried to get Pence to swap his in.

That action blows way through the doors, even with regard to his interactions with Raffensberger in GA.

And in honesty, I agree that Trump was not, and should not, have been charged with an insurrection charge. As you said, it is immensely hard to prove, even more so an incitement charge.

But I am not talking about Trump's speech on J6, the riot at the Capitol, or the immense amount of lies he put out there to 'charge the battery' so to speak.

Im talking very pointedly, and specifically, about his actions trying to get Pence to shitcan the electoral slates when I say he is a 'threat to democracy'. And I dont take that phrase lightly.

(09-18-2024 09:33 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-18-2024 09:25 AM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(09-18-2024 09:18 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-18-2024 09:07 AM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  I don’t view Trump as a threat to democracy. He has zero chance at winning reelection in 2028.

He will sign overreaching EOs just like every single President before him.

His current movement is supplemented by people like Musk and RFK who will absolutely call out his BS when it happens.

I wasn’t a fan of his J6 actions, but we already had enough checks and balances to thwart overturning elections. The Founders knew this could happen and set it up for a reason. This is exactly why we have an Electoral College, so that the federal government cannot simply remain in power because it deems so. Does the left not understand this concept?

Not to mention, that riot was coming off a year of left wing rioting, so there is not a moral high ground in either direction.

So trying to throw out the certified electoral slates of 7 states, all submitted within the safe harbor, simply.... because... isnt an attack on the democratic process?

Trying to replace those certified electoral slates of 7 states, all submitted within the safe harbor, and representing the will and choice of 25 million citizens simply.... because... is not an attack on the democratic process?

Simply based on the above I am comfortable saying that when Trump urged/ told/ tried to persuade Pence to do the steps above, that was a *serious* threat to democracy.

You said 'this is why we have an Electoral College, so that the government cannot simply remain in power because it deems it so'.

Yet Trump explicitly attacked the process of the Electoral College, and tried to remain in power simply because he deemed it so. You seem to have missed that point.

In honesty, I think your comments bolded above are accurate. But you dont seem to have a handle on the actions that Trump tried to have happen, and what Trump did in at least one portion of his actions was an attempt to subvert or short circuit that process.

When I said I didn’t agree with his actions on J6, I’m referring to the elector scheme and pressuring Kemp to find the votes. I’m not dying on that hill. But in practice, the only way the electors get thrown out is if other governors decide to authorize it, which they didn’t. Hence the electoral college point. That’s the check and balance and why it exists.

Presidents attack institutions and try to usurp their power all of the time in different ways, but there are checks and balances. Not a peep when that occurs.

I actually believe you have the most consistent viewpoint on the constitution of many here, and I can respect that. But Trump was never charged with insurrection because it’s very difficult to prove. Mostly because it was an unprecedented situation

Im talking specifically here about his trying to get Pence to shitcan the votes of 7 states, and replace them with his.

As to the bolded - I agree. That is why I talk about Trump being a threat to democracy more precisely in in his efforts to get Pence to throw out the votes of WI, MI, PA, GA, NM, AZ, and NV -- without any basis. And then tried to get Pence to swap his in.

That action blows way through the doors, even with regard to his interactions with Raffensberger in GA.

And in honesty, I agree that Trump was not, and should not, have been charged with an insurrection charge. As you said, it is immensely hard to prove, even more so an incitement charge.

But I am not talking about Trump's speech on J6, the riot at the Capitol, or the immense amount of lies he put out there to 'charge the battery' so to speak.

Im talking very pointedly, and specifically, about his actions trying to get Pence to shitcan the electoral slates when I say he is a 'threat to democracy'. And I dont take that phrase lightly.

Right, but we have already agreed that his actions were not good.

Moving forward I’m not sure how it will even be an issue. He can’t run again in 2028. I guess he could do something with the midterms? I don’t see this issue actually being important to anyone years down the road, that’s ultimately my point here.

This whole thread is why Hamilton argued in his Federalist paper against political parties.

(09-18-2024 09:46 AM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(09-18-2024 09:33 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-18-2024 09:25 AM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(09-18-2024 09:18 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-18-2024 09:07 AM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  I don’t view Trump as a threat to democracy. He has zero chance at winning reelection in 2028.

He will sign overreaching EOs just like every single President before him.

His current movement is supplemented by people like Musk and RFK who will absolutely call out his BS when it happens.

I wasn’t a fan of his J6 actions, but we already had enough checks and balances to thwart overturning elections. The Founders knew this could happen and set it up for a reason. This is exactly why we have an Electoral College, so that the federal government cannot simply remain in power because it deems so. Does the left not understand this concept?

Not to mention, that riot was coming off a year of left wing rioting, so there is not a moral high ground in either direction.

So trying to throw out the certified electoral slates of 7 states, all submitted within the safe harbor, simply.... because... isnt an attack on the democratic process?

Trying to replace those certified electoral slates of 7 states, all submitted within the safe harbor, and representing the will and choice of 25 million citizens simply.... because... is not an attack on the democratic process?

Simply based on the above I am comfortable saying that when Trump urged/ told/ tried to persuade Pence to do the steps above, that was a *serious* threat to democracy.

You said 'this is why we have an Electoral College, so that the government cannot simply remain in power because it deems it so'.

Yet Trump explicitly attacked the process of the Electoral College, and tried to remain in power simply because he deemed it so. You seem to have missed that point.

In honesty, I think your comments bolded above are accurate. But you dont seem to have a handle on the actions that Trump tried to have happen, and what Trump did in at least one portion of his actions was an attempt to subvert or short circuit that process.

When I said I didn’t agree with his actions on J6, I’m referring to the elector scheme and pressuring Kemp to find the votes. I’m not dying on that hill. But in practice, the only way the electors get thrown out is if other governors decide to authorize it, which they didn’t. Hence the electoral college point. That’s the check and balance and why it exists.

Presidents attack institutions and try to usurp their power all of the time in different ways, but there are checks and balances. Not a peep when that occurs.

I actually believe you have the most consistent viewpoint on the constitution of many here, and I can respect that. But Trump was never charged with insurrection because it’s very difficult to prove. Mostly because it was an unprecedented situation

Im talking specifically here about his trying to get Pence to shitcan the votes of 7 states, and replace them with his.

As to the bolded - I agree. That is why I talk about Trump being a threat to democracy more precisely in in his efforts to get Pence to throw out the votes of WI, MI, PA, GA, NM, AZ, and NV -- without any basis. And then tried to get Pence to swap his in.

That action blows way through the doors, even with regard to his interactions with Raffensberger in GA.

And in honesty, I agree that Trump was not, and should not, have been charged with an insurrection charge. As you said, it is immensely hard to prove, even more so an incitement charge.

But I am not talking about Trump's speech on J6, the riot at the Capitol, or the immense amount of lies he put out there to 'charge the battery' so to speak.

Im talking very pointedly, and specifically, about his actions trying to get Pence to shitcan the electoral slates when I say he is a 'threat to democracy'. And I dont take that phrase lightly.

Right, but we have already agreed that his actions were not good.

Moving forward I’m not sure how it will even be an issue. He can’t run again in 2028. I guess he could do something with the midterms? I don’t see this issue actually being important to anyone years down the road, that’s ultimately my point here.

I would be far less trustful of someone being placed in the office of President and its immense powers whom has shown nothing but contempt at the fundamental process of governance as defined in the bedrock of that social contract.

Much like one should never place a person having a history of fraud as the CEO of, say, Citibank.

(09-18-2024 09:46 AM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(09-18-2024 09:33 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-18-2024 09:25 AM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(09-18-2024 09:18 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-18-2024 09:07 AM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  I don’t view Trump as a threat to democracy. He has zero chance at winning reelection in 2028.

He will sign overreaching EOs just like every single President before him.

His current movement is supplemented by people like Musk and RFK who will absolutely call out his BS when it happens.

I wasn’t a fan of his J6 actions, but we already had enough checks and balances to thwart overturning elections. The Founders knew this could happen and set it up for a reason. This is exactly why we have an Electoral College, so that the federal government cannot simply remain in power because it deems so. Does the left not understand this concept?

Not to mention, that riot was coming off a year of left wing rioting, so there is not a moral high ground in either direction.

So trying to throw out the certified electoral slates of 7 states, all submitted within the safe harbor, simply.... because... isnt an attack on the democratic process?

Trying to replace those certified electoral slates of 7 states, all submitted within the safe harbor, and representing the will and choice of 25 million citizens simply.... because... is not an attack on the democratic process?

Simply based on the above I am comfortable saying that when Trump urged/ told/ tried to persuade Pence to do the steps above, that was a *serious* threat to democracy.

You said 'this is why we have an Electoral College, so that the government cannot simply remain in power because it deems it so'.

Yet Trump explicitly attacked the process of the Electoral College, and tried to remain in power simply because he deemed it so. You seem to have missed that point.

In honesty, I think your comments bolded above are accurate. But you dont seem to have a handle on the actions that Trump tried to have happen, and what Trump did in at least one portion of his actions was an attempt to subvert or short circuit that process.

When I said I didn’t agree with his actions on J6, I’m referring to the elector scheme and pressuring Kemp to find the votes. I’m not dying on that hill. But in practice, the only way the electors get thrown out is if other governors decide to authorize it, which they didn’t. Hence the electoral college point. That’s the check and balance and why it exists.

Presidents attack institutions and try to usurp their power all of the time in different ways, but there are checks and balances. Not a peep when that occurs.

I actually believe you have the most consistent viewpoint on the constitution of many here, and I can respect that. But Trump was never charged with insurrection because it’s very difficult to prove. Mostly because it was an unprecedented situation

Im talking specifically here about his trying to get Pence to shitcan the votes of 7 states, and replace them with his.

As to the bolded - I agree. That is why I talk about Trump being a threat to democracy more precisely in in his efforts to get Pence to throw out the votes of WI, MI, PA, GA, NM, AZ, and NV -- without any basis. And then tried to get Pence to swap his in.

That action blows way through the doors, even with regard to his interactions with Raffensberger in GA.

And in honesty, I agree that Trump was not, and should not, have been charged with an insurrection charge. As you said, it is immensely hard to prove, even more so an incitement charge.

But I am not talking about Trump's speech on J6, the riot at the Capitol, or the immense amount of lies he put out there to 'charge the battery' so to speak.

Im talking very pointedly, and specifically, about his actions trying to get Pence to shitcan the electoral slates when I say he is a 'threat to democracy'. And I dont take that phrase lightly.

Right, but we have already agreed that his actions were not good.

Moving forward I’m not sure how it will even be an issue. He can’t run again in 2028. I guess he could do something with the midterms? I don’t see this issue actually being important to anyone years down the road, that’s ultimately my point here.

He pressured the vice president to violate the constitution and throw out the lawful electoral college votes and replace them with false certificates.

If he is willing to **** on the constitution like that, what makes you think he is going to walk out peacefully in 2028?

(09-18-2024 10:51 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(09-18-2024 09:46 AM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(09-18-2024 09:33 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-18-2024 09:25 AM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(09-18-2024 09:18 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  So trying to throw out the certified electoral slates of 7 states, all submitted within the safe harbor, simply.... because... isnt an attack on the democratic process?

Trying to replace those certified electoral slates of 7 states, all submitted within the safe harbor, and representing the will and choice of 25 million citizens simply.... because... is not an attack on the democratic process?

Simply based on the above I am comfortable saying that when Trump urged/ told/ tried to persuade Pence to do the steps above, that was a *serious* threat to democracy.

You said 'this is why we have an Electoral College, so that the government cannot simply remain in power because it deems it so'.

Yet Trump explicitly attacked the process of the Electoral College, and tried to remain in power simply because he deemed it so. You seem to have missed that point.

In honesty, I think your comments bolded above are accurate. But you dont seem to have a handle on the actions that Trump tried to have happen, and what Trump did in at least one portion of his actions was an attempt to subvert or short circuit that process.

When I said I didn’t agree with his actions on J6, I’m referring to the elector scheme and pressuring Kemp to find the votes. I’m not dying on that hill. But in practice, the only way the electors get thrown out is if other governors decide to authorize it, which they didn’t. Hence the electoral college point. That’s the check and balance and why it exists.

Presidents attack institutions and try to usurp their power all of the time in different ways, but there are checks and balances. Not a peep when that occurs.

I actually believe you have the most consistent viewpoint on the constitution of many here, and I can respect that. But Trump was never charged with insurrection because it’s very difficult to prove. Mostly because it was an unprecedented situation

Im talking specifically here about his trying to get Pence to shitcan the votes of 7 states, and replace them with his.

As to the bolded - I agree. That is why I talk about Trump being a threat to democracy more precisely in in his efforts to get Pence to throw out the votes of WI, MI, PA, GA, NM, AZ, and NV -- without any basis. And then tried to get Pence to swap his in.

That action blows way through the doors, even with regard to his interactions with Raffensberger in GA.

And in honesty, I agree that Trump was not, and should not, have been charged with an insurrection charge. As you said, it is immensely hard to prove, even more so an incitement charge.

But I am not talking about Trump's speech on J6, the riot at the Capitol, or the immense amount of lies he put out there to 'charge the battery' so to speak.

Im talking very pointedly, and specifically, about his actions trying to get Pence to shitcan the electoral slates when I say he is a 'threat to democracy'. And I dont take that phrase lightly.

Right, but we have already agreed that his actions were not good.

Moving forward I’m not sure how it will even be an issue. He can’t run again in 2028. I guess he could do something with the midterms? I don’t see this issue actually being important to anyone years down the road, that’s ultimately my point here.

He pressured the vice president to violate the constitution and throw out the lawful electoral college votes and replace them with false certificates.

If he is willing to **** on the constitution like that, what makes you think he is going to walk out peacefully in 2028?

Because when he tried to remain in power, nobody did what he wanted and he left office.

(09-18-2024 10:51 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(09-18-2024 09:46 AM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(09-18-2024 09:33 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-18-2024 09:25 AM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(09-18-2024 09:18 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  So trying to throw out the certified electoral slates of 7 states, all submitted within the safe harbor, simply.... because... isnt an attack on the democratic process?

Trying to replace those certified electoral slates of 7 states, all submitted within the safe harbor, and representing the will and choice of 25 million citizens simply.... because... is not an attack on the democratic process?

Simply based on the above I am comfortable saying that when Trump urged/ told/ tried to persuade Pence to do the steps above, that was a *serious* threat to democracy.

You said 'this is why we have an Electoral College, so that the government cannot simply remain in power because it deems it so'.

Yet Trump explicitly attacked the process of the Electoral College, and tried to remain in power simply because he deemed it so. You seem to have missed that point.

In honesty, I think your comments bolded above are accurate. But you dont seem to have a handle on the actions that Trump tried to have happen, and what Trump did in at least one portion of his actions was an attempt to subvert or short circuit that process.

When I said I didn’t agree with his actions on J6, I’m referring to the elector scheme and pressuring Kemp to find the votes. I’m not dying on that hill. But in practice, the only way the electors get thrown out is if other governors decide to authorize it, which they didn’t. Hence the electoral college point. That’s the check and balance and why it exists.

Presidents attack institutions and try to usurp their power all of the time in different ways, but there are checks and balances. Not a peep when that occurs.

I actually believe you have the most consistent viewpoint on the constitution of many here, and I can respect that. But Trump was never charged with insurrection because it’s very difficult to prove. Mostly because it was an unprecedented situation

Im talking specifically here about his trying to get Pence to shitcan the votes of 7 states, and replace them with his.

As to the bolded - I agree. That is why I talk about Trump being a threat to democracy more precisely in in his efforts to get Pence to throw out the votes of WI, MI, PA, GA, NM, AZ, and NV -- without any basis. And then tried to get Pence to swap his in.

That action blows way through the doors, even with regard to his interactions with Raffensberger in GA.

And in honesty, I agree that Trump was not, and should not, have been charged with an insurrection charge. As you said, it is immensely hard to prove, even more so an incitement charge.

But I am not talking about Trump's speech on J6, the riot at the Capitol, or the immense amount of lies he put out there to 'charge the battery' so to speak.

Im talking very pointedly, and specifically, about his actions trying to get Pence to shitcan the electoral slates when I say he is a 'threat to democracy'. And I dont take that phrase lightly.

Right, but we have already agreed that his actions were not good.

Moving forward I’m not sure how it will even be an issue. He can’t run again in 2028. I guess he could do something with the midterms? I don’t see this issue actually being important to anyone years down the road, that’s ultimately my point here.

He pressured the vice president to violate the constitution and throw out the lawful electoral college votes and replace them with false certificates.

If he is willing to **** on the constitution like that, what makes you think he is going to walk out peacefully in 2028?

Like it's never been done. This holier than thou dog doesn't hunt.

How Democrats Attempted a 2016 Electoral College Coup

The line of “Trump **** on the constitution” would have more meaning if the last 45 guys didn’t all do it too.

It’s as if history only began in 2017 and everything before that was hunky dory.

(09-18-2024 10:55 AM)Claw Wrote:  

(09-18-2024 10:51 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(09-18-2024 09:46 AM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(09-18-2024 09:33 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-18-2024 09:25 AM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  When I said I didn’t agree with his actions on J6, I’m referring to the elector scheme and pressuring Kemp to find the votes. I’m not dying on that hill. But in practice, the only way the electors get thrown out is if other governors decide to authorize it, which they didn’t. Hence the electoral college point. That’s the check and balance and why it exists.

Presidents attack institutions and try to usurp their power all of the time in different ways, but there are checks and balances. Not a peep when that occurs.

I actually believe you have the most consistent viewpoint on the constitution of many here, and I can respect that. But Trump was never charged with insurrection because it’s very difficult to prove. Mostly because it was an unprecedented situation

Im talking specifically here about his trying to get Pence to shitcan the votes of 7 states, and replace them with his.

As to the bolded - I agree. That is why I talk about Trump being a threat to democracy more precisely in in his efforts to get Pence to throw out the votes of WI, MI, PA, GA, NM, AZ, and NV -- without any basis. And then tried to get Pence to swap his in.

That action blows way through the doors, even with regard to his interactions with Raffensberger in GA.

And in honesty, I agree that Trump was not, and should not, have been charged with an insurrection charge. As you said, it is immensely hard to prove, even more so an incitement charge.

But I am not talking about Trump's speech on J6, the riot at the Capitol, or the immense amount of lies he put out there to 'charge the battery' so to speak.

Im talking very pointedly, and specifically, about his actions trying to get Pence to shitcan the electoral slates when I say he is a 'threat to democracy'. And I dont take that phrase lightly.

Right, but we have already agreed that his actions were not good.

Moving forward I’m not sure how it will even be an issue. He can’t run again in 2028. I guess he could do something with the midterms? I don’t see this issue actually being important to anyone years down the road, that’s ultimately my point here.

He pressured the vice president to violate the constitution and throw out the lawful electoral college votes and replace them with false certificates.

If he is willing to **** on the constitution like that, what makes you think he is going to walk out peacefully in 2028?

Like it's never been done. This holier than thou dog doesn't hunt.

How Democrats Attempted a 2016 Electoral College Coup

Last I saw, the state electors are free to vote for whomever they wish. Imagine that.

Again -- Trump tried to get Pence to simply throw the electoral slates of 7 states out, and replace them with those for him.

I would hope you might see the very real -- and very tangible -- differences in the two courses of action.

(09-18-2024 11:02 AM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  The line of “Trump **** on the constitution” would have more meaning if the last 45 guys didn’t all do it too.

It’s as if history only began in 2017 and everything before that was hunky dory.

How about 'Trump **** on the electoral process for choosing the President.' Better?

And to be precise, there is a *world* of difference between shitting on a bedrock principle of the transition of power, and whether some paragraph in an EO dealing with funding for moth research exceeded authority.

dunno … how ‘bout this, bubby?!

(09-18-2024 11:04 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-18-2024 11:02 AM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  The line of “Trump **** on the constitution” would have more meaning if the last 45 guys didn’t all do it too.

It’s as if history only began in 2017 and everything before that was hunky dory.

How about 'Trump **** on the electoral process for choosing the President.' Better?

Sure. Now do 2024.