The Democrats threw out the votes of all 50 states when they forced Joe to step down after he won the Democratic Party's primary by a landslide. How many votes did Kamala have?

(09-18-2024 11:07 AM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(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.

Yes, how dare a private group select their candidate as they see fit. Amazing equivalence.

To your previous comment that 'the rest of the 45 did it' -- 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.

(09-18-2024 11:08 AM)ODU BBALL Wrote:  The Democrats threw out the votes of all 50 states when they forced Joe to step down after he won the Democratic Party's primary by a landslide. How many votes did Kamala have?

Yes, how dare a private group select their candidate as they see fit. Amazing equivalence.

The actions that Trump engaged in explicitly **** on the provisions of the Constitution, and the electoral process for the 7 states within that Constitutional definition and framework. Yes, that was a threat to democracy. Absolutely.

Perhaps show me the constitutional requirement on how parties (private groups) choose candidates for their party?

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

(09-18-2024 11:07 AM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(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.

Yes, how dare a private group select their candidate as they see fit. Amazing equivalence.

To your previous comment that 'the rest of the 45 did it' -- 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.

So to be clear, a group of party elites invalidating their own primaries isn’t anti-democratic? You’re going to die on that hill?

(09-18-2024 11:12 AM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

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

(09-18-2024 11:07 AM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(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.

Yes, how dare a private group select their candidate as they see fit. Amazing equivalence.

To your previous comment that 'the rest of the 45 did it' -- 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.

So to be clear, a group of party elites invalidating their own primaries isn’t anti-democratic? You’re going to die on that hill?

yep … ain’t no seems like it, to it…

(09-18-2024 11:12 AM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

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

(09-18-2024 11:07 AM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(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.

Yes, how dare a private group select their candidate as they see fit. Amazing equivalence.

To your previous comment that 'the rest of the 45 did it' -- 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.

So to be clear, a group of party elites invalidating their own primaries isn’t anti-democratic? You’re going to die on that hill?

Every private organization has their own rules. That is their right as a private organization.

Every private organization has an absolute right to determine whom they wish to represent them. And Biden willingly ceded that right to someone else. And the party, within their own rules, selected another candidate. In fact every private group I have ever been involved with has that power.

Yes, how dare a private organization do that. The horror.

Equivalent to a President telling his VP to short circuit the certified electoral slates in 7 states. Yep, precisely the same thing. Lolz.

(09-18-2024 11:20 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Every private organization has their own rules. That is their right as a private organization.

Every private organization has an absolute right to determine whom they wish to represent them. And Biden willingly ceded that right to someone else. And the party, within their own rules, selected another candidate. In fact every private group I have ever been involved with has that power.

Yes, how dare a private organization do that. The horror.

Equivalent to a President telling his VP to short circuit the certified electoral slates in 7 states. Yep, precisely the same thing. Lolz.

Can you point to where I said they shouldn't have the "right" to invalidate their primary process?

I simply asked if it was anti-democratic. Is it the right thing to do? Can you cede the moral high ground when a group unilaterally decides to remove the candidate who garnered the most votes and install someone else?

Also, your statement that Biden ceded power on his own merit is not accurate according to reports. They were going to use the 25th Amendment to force him out if he didn't do what they asked.

(09-18-2024 11:25 AM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(09-18-2024 11:20 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Every private organization has their own rules. That is their right as a private organization.

Every private organization has an absolute right to determine whom they wish to represent them. And Biden willingly ceded that right to someone else. And the party, within their own rules, selected another candidate. In fact every private group I have ever been involved with has that power.

Yes, how dare a private organization do that. The horror.

Equivalent to a President telling his VP to short circuit the certified electoral slates in 7 states. Yep, precisely the same thing. Lolz.

Can you point to where I said they shouldn't have the "right" to invalidate their primary process?

I simply asked if it was anti-democratic. Is it the right thing to do? Can you cede the moral high ground when a group unilaterally decides to remove the candidate who garnered the most votes and install someone else?

Also, your statement that Biden ceded power on his own merit is not accurate according to reports. They were going to use the 25th Amendment to force him out if he didn't do what they asked.

The Democrats are running into their version of the sinning right wing Christian.

If someone else removed their elected candidate by fiat, the private organization angle might fly.

It doesn't fly though when your are the "every vote must count", "everyone should be able to vote", and "votes are the foundation of Democracy" organization.

It's exactly like Jerry Falwell or Jim Baker getting caught with their pants down.

If you are going to preach it, you better live it. Otherwise, everybody is going to attack you for the hypocrisy.

Best the Democrats can do is ask forgiveness, but apparently they can't bring themselves to do that. That makes it even worse.

(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?

Yes, AK platform semi auto rifles are easily available at gun stores.

The legality of flying with a weapon would depend on the source and destination, but the practicality of flying with a semi auto, nfa transferable, or illegal machine gun would all be the same. Unloaded, locked, checked bag.

It sounds like there is some question on what rifle he had, and it is more likely an SKS pattern rifle with an aftermarket stock and mag.

(09-18-2024 11:25 AM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(09-18-2024 11:20 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Every private organization has their own rules. That is their right as a private organization.

Every private organization has an absolute right to determine whom they wish to represent them. And Biden willingly ceded that right to someone else. And the party, within their own rules, selected another candidate. In fact every private group I have ever been involved with has that power.

Yes, how dare a private organization do that. The horror.

Equivalent to a President telling his VP to short circuit the certified electoral slates in 7 states. Yep, precisely the same thing. Lolz.

Can you point to where I said they shouldn't have the "right" to invalidate their primary process?

I simply asked if it was anti-democratic. Is it the right thing to do? Can you cede the moral high ground when a group unilaterally decides to remove the candidate who garnered the most votes and install someone else?

I have zero problem with *any* private group selecting any officer of that group, or any candidate that they may sponsor, in whatever manner they as a group deem proper.

If there is a state or Federal law as to that selection, that law must be abided with. Same for state or Federal Constitution.

Elections to office (as opposed to selection of candidates) should absolutely be within the confines of the law and the Constitution. Telling or asking your VP to simply ignore the electoral slates, certified under the law, and outside of the bounds of the Constitution is a wholly different galaxy than a private organization making *their* choice for being *their* candidate.

Quote:Also, your statement that Biden ceded power on his own merit is not accurate according to reports. They were going to use the 25th Amendment to force him out if he didn't do what they asked.

According to most reports the 25th wasn’t an issue. In most accounts, the harsh news to Biden that he was on a path to electoral defeat, and not by a small margin, was sufficient. Not at first, but eventually the tale of numbers didn’t change.

Harsh? Yes. Was it the will of the party? I would say undoubtedly that at this time you would be hard pressed to find someone lamenting that action within the D party. And that is the underlying dynamic with private groups of all sorts.

I’ve been in a position to see first hand the dynamics of these situations —- when a CEO, founder, or full board has been co-opted. It’s the function of a private group, acting for the advantage of that group in the short, medium, or long term.

Sorry, I’m not losing sleep over the internal functioning of a private group as much as you might I that regard.

(09-18-2024 11:51 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-18-2024 11:25 AM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(09-18-2024 11:20 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Every private organization has their own rules. That is their right as a private organization.

Every private organization has an absolute right to determine whom they wish to represent them. And Biden willingly ceded that right to someone else. And the party, within their own rules, selected another candidate. In fact every private group I have ever been involved with has that power.

Yes, how dare a private organization do that. The horror.

Equivalent to a President telling his VP to short circuit the certified electoral slates in 7 states. Yep, precisely the same thing. Lolz.

Can you point to where I said they shouldn't have the "right" to invalidate their primary process?

I simply asked if it was anti-democratic. Is it the right thing to do? Can you cede the moral high ground when a group unilaterally decides to remove the candidate who garnered the most votes and install someone else?

I have zero problem with *any* private group selecting any officer of that group, or any candidate that they may sponsor, in whatever manner they as a group deem proper.

If there is a state or Federal law as to that selection, that law must be abided with. Same for state or Federal Constitution.

Elections to office (as opposed to selection of candidates) should absolutely be within the confines of the law and the Constitution. Telling or asking your VP to simply ignore the electoral slates, certified under the law, and outside of the bounds of the Constitution is a wholly different galaxy than a private organization making *their* choice for being *their* candidate.

Quote:Also, your statement that Biden ceded power on his own merit is not accurate according to reports. They were going to use the 25th Amendment to force him out if he didn't do what they asked.

According to most reports the 25th wasn’t an issue. In most accounts, the harsh news to Biden that he was on a path to electoral defeat, and not by a small margin, was sufficient. Not at first, but eventually the tale of numbers didn’t change.

Harsh? Yes. Was it the will of the party? I would say undoubtedly that at this time you would be hard pressed to find someone lamenting that action within the D party. And that is the underlying dynamic with private groups of all sorts.

I’ve been in a position to see first hand the dynamics of these situations —- when a CEO, founder, or full board has been co-opted. It’s the function of a private group, acting for the advantage of that group in the short, medium, or long term.

Sorry, I’m not losing sleep over the internal functioning of a private group as much as you might I that regard.

You keep evading the question though. I’m arguing against your hypocrisy on this particular statement of “… the electoral process for choosing the President,” which you only single out Trump.

Nobody is discussing about the right of a private group doing whatever it wants. Nobody cares about that. The main story here is Democrat party leadership coerced the winner of the primaries (where people actually voted) to step aside. Then instead of pivoting to a quick replacement primary or vote, they promote “their” candidate. That is the definition of undemocratic in every conceivable way.

It’s probably why the “concern for democracy” issue is only polling at 3% out of all the non-economic issues.

(09-18-2024 11:37 AM)Claw Wrote:  

(09-18-2024 11:25 AM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(09-18-2024 11:20 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Every private organization has their own rules. That is their right as a private organization.

Every private organization has an absolute right to determine whom they wish to represent them. And Biden willingly ceded that right to someone else. And the party, within their own rules, selected another candidate. In fact every private group I have ever been involved with has that power.

Yes, how dare a private organization do that. The horror.

Equivalent to a President telling his VP to short circuit the certified electoral slates in 7 states. Yep, precisely the same thing. Lolz.

Can you point to where I said they shouldn't have the "right" to invalidate their primary process?

I simply asked if it was anti-democratic. Is it the right thing to do? Can you cede the moral high ground when a group unilaterally decides to remove the candidate who garnered the most votes and install someone else?

Also, your statement that Biden ceded power on his own merit is not accurate according to reports. They were going to use the 25th Amendment to force him out if he didn't do what they asked.

The Democrats are running into their version of the sinning right wing Christian.

If someone else removed their elected candidate by fiat, the private organization angle might fly.

It doesn't fly though when your are the "every vote must count", "everyone should be able to vote", and "votes are the foundation of Democracy" organization.

It's exactly like Jerry Falwell or Jim Baker getting caught with their pants down.

If you are going to preach it, you better live it. Otherwise, everybody is going to attack you for the hypocrisy.

Best the Democrats can do is ask forgiveness, but apparently they can't bring themselves to do that. That makes it even worse.

Precisely the point. Well done.

(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

If you are questioning the "fake electors," that is something everyone does when a state is in question to protect their rights. If you are talking about requesting Pence to hold off on certifying states, well I can understand that.

All he was doing with Kemp was trying to get the actual results. The Georgia election was incredibly messy. There were probably about 10 counties where the recount changed the results by 100 votes or more--and 9 of those 10 errors had helped Biden. Highly unlikely that was random as the odds against that are less than 1%. They didn't count precincts. They double counted precincts. And as for corruption and illegal acts, I could fill the page with Atlanta area public officials convicted of crimes. I have no doubt the Democrats in Fulton and other counties cheated. Georgia politicians would make Louisiana politicians blush.

(09-18-2024 12:06 PM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(09-18-2024 11:51 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-18-2024 11:25 AM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(09-18-2024 11:20 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Every private organization has their own rules. That is their right as a private organization.

Every private organization has an absolute right to determine whom they wish to represent them. And Biden willingly ceded that right to someone else. And the party, within their own rules, selected another candidate. In fact every private group I have ever been involved with has that power.

Yes, how dare a private organization do that. The horror.

Equivalent to a President telling his VP to short circuit the certified electoral slates in 7 states. Yep, precisely the same thing. Lolz.

Can you point to where I said they shouldn't have the "right" to invalidate their primary process?

I simply asked if it was anti-democratic. Is it the right thing to do? Can you cede the moral high ground when a group unilaterally decides to remove the candidate who garnered the most votes and install someone else?

I have zero problem with *any* private group selecting any officer of that group, or any candidate that they may sponsor, in whatever manner they as a group deem proper.

If there is a state or Federal law as to that selection, that law must be abided with. Same for state or Federal Constitution.

Elections to office (as opposed to selection of candidates) should absolutely be within the confines of the law and the Constitution. Telling or asking your VP to simply ignore the electoral slates, certified under the law, and outside of the bounds of the Constitution is a wholly different galaxy than a private organization making *their* choice for being *their* candidate.

Quote:Also, your statement that Biden ceded power on his own merit is not accurate according to reports. They were going to use the 25th Amendment to force him out if he didn't do what they asked.

According to most reports the 25th wasn’t an issue. In most accounts, the harsh news to Biden that he was on a path to electoral defeat, and not by a small margin, was sufficient. Not at first, but eventually the tale of numbers didn’t change.

Harsh? Yes. Was it the will of the party? I would say undoubtedly that at this time you would be hard pressed to find someone lamenting that action within the D party. And that is the underlying dynamic with private groups of all sorts.

I’ve been in a position to see first hand the dynamics of these situations —- when a CEO, founder, or full board has been co-opted. It’s the function of a private group, acting for the advantage of that group in the short, medium, or long term.

Sorry, I’m not losing sleep over the internal functioning of a private group as much as you might I that regard.

You keep evading the question though. I’m arguing against your hypocrisy on this particular statement of “… the electoral process for choosing the President,” which you only single out Trump.

Nobody is discussing about the right of a private group doing whatever it wants. Nobody cares about that. The main story here is Democrat party leadership coerced the winner of the primaries (where people actually voted) to step aside. Then instead of pivoting to a quick replacement primary or vote, they promote “their” candidate. That is the definition of undemocratic in every conceivable way.

It’s probably why the “concern for democracy” issue is only polling at 3% out of all the non-economic issues.

And that difference is probably why Trump is being prosecuted for those items, and why (pick your cast member of these supposed party elites) will almost assuredly not be.

How a private group picks their candidate is not a fundamental stricture of the Constitutional order in selecting a President.

Trump absolutely tried to interfere in that Constitutional process. Showing a blatant disregard for that Constitution in the process. And as such, earning on a fair basis the moniker 'a threat to democracy'. Literally *the* democracy guaranteed in the Constitution.

Go on about all you want on how a private group picks their candidate is an equivalent -- go right ahead. Fairly much not on point, but nothing there to stop you in that attempt at an equivalence.

The more you post, the less credible you become. You really are the Adam Kinziger of the board.

(09-18-2024 12:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-18-2024 12:06 PM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(09-18-2024 11:51 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-18-2024 11:25 AM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(09-18-2024 11:20 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Every private organization has their own rules. That is their right as a private organization.

Every private organization has an absolute right to determine whom they wish to represent them. And Biden willingly ceded that right to someone else. And the party, within their own rules, selected another candidate. In fact every private group I have ever been involved with has that power.

Yes, how dare a private organization do that. The horror.

Equivalent to a President telling his VP to short circuit the certified electoral slates in 7 states. Yep, precisely the same thing. Lolz.

Can you point to where I said they shouldn't have the "right" to invalidate their primary process?

I simply asked if it was anti-democratic. Is it the right thing to do? Can you cede the moral high ground when a group unilaterally decides to remove the candidate who garnered the most votes and install someone else?

I have zero problem with *any* private group selecting any officer of that group, or any candidate that they may sponsor, in whatever manner they as a group deem proper.

If there is a state or Federal law as to that selection, that law must be abided with. Same for state or Federal Constitution.

Elections to office (as opposed to selection of candidates) should absolutely be within the confines of the law and the Constitution. Telling or asking your VP to simply ignore the electoral slates, certified under the law, and outside of the bounds of the Constitution is a wholly different galaxy than a private organization making *their* choice for being *their* candidate.

Quote:Also, your statement that Biden ceded power on his own merit is not accurate according to reports. They were going to use the 25th Amendment to force him out if he didn't do what they asked.

According to most reports the 25th wasn’t an issue. In most accounts, the harsh news to Biden that he was on a path to electoral defeat, and not by a small margin, was sufficient. Not at first, but eventually the tale of numbers didn’t change.

Harsh? Yes. Was it the will of the party? I would say undoubtedly that at this time you would be hard pressed to find someone lamenting that action within the D party. And that is the underlying dynamic with private groups of all sorts.

I’ve been in a position to see first hand the dynamics of these situations —- when a CEO, founder, or full board has been co-opted. It’s the function of a private group, acting for the advantage of that group in the short, medium, or long term.

Sorry, I’m not losing sleep over the internal functioning of a private group as much as you might I that regard.

You keep evading the question though. I’m arguing against your hypocrisy on this particular statement of “… the electoral process for choosing the President,” which you only single out Trump.

Nobody is discussing about the right of a private group doing whatever it wants. Nobody cares about that. The main story here is Democrat party leadership coerced the winner of the primaries (where people actually voted) to step aside. Then instead of pivoting to a quick replacement primary or vote, they promote “their” candidate. That is the definition of undemocratic in every conceivable way.

It’s probably why the “concern for democracy” issue is only polling at 3% out of all the non-economic issues.

And that difference is probably why Trump is being prosecuted for those items, and why (pick your cast member of these supposed party elites) will almost assuredly not be.

How a private group picks their candidate is not a fundamental stricture of the Constitutional order in selecting a President.

Trump absolutely tried to interfere in that Constitutional process. Showing a blatant disregard for that Constitution in the process. And as such, earning on a fair basis the moniker 'a threat to democracy'. Literally *the* democracy guaranteed in the Constitution.

Go on about all you want on how a private group picks their candidate is an equivalent -- go right ahead. Fairly much not on point, but nothing there to stop you in that attempt at an equivalence.

It’s worth reminding you that this portion of the discussion was based on something you posted. Your entire focus is on the legality of what the DNC is allowed to do, and mine is about how hypocritical the DNC is about how they decide to select their candidate. Not sure why that can’t be some agreement there.

Imagine if Trump lost the primaries bigly but the RNC decided to make him the nominee anyway. Do you think that would fly with the media?

I’ve already agreed what Trump did violate the constitutional process and norms, so I’m not sure what else I can say to further agree with you. I have since then given reasons why I think that issue will not persist or stay relevant if he wins this election.

In our democratic process, Trump has received over 17 million primary votes and is polling close with the Democratic challenger. So far he hasn’t been repudiated nationally for what happened on J6. We’ll see what happens.

(09-18-2024 12:26 PM)bullet 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

If you are questioning the "fake electors," that is something everyone does when a state is in question to protect their rights. If you are talking about requesting Pence to hold off on certifying states, well I can understand that.

I have *zero* problem with the Trump side putting into place alternate electors. They had to have them in place *if* (a big if) they had a court case go their way, or *if* they had a legislature remove the certificate of ascertainment from the Biden slate.

The problem is the effort in which he told Pence not just to 'hold off', but, according to Pence himself, Trump tried to get him to ditch slates simply because. And, according to Pence in public statements, tried to get him to replace those ditched slates *with* the alternates they had.

The US brief on the issue is due September 26. I would hazard a guess that if what Pence told the public via interview was repeated to the grand jury -- that will be included in that upcoming filing.

Quote:All he was doing with Kemp was trying to get the actual results. The Georgia election was incredibly messy. There were probably about 10 counties where the recount changed the results by 100 votes or more--and 9 of those 10 errors had helped Biden. Highly unlikely that was random as the odds against that are less than 1%. They didn't count precincts. They double counted precincts. And as for corruption and illegal acts, I could fill the page with Atlanta area public officials convicted of crimes. I have no doubt the Democrats in Fulton and other counties cheated. Georgia politicians would make Louisiana politicians blush.

I dont have an issue with his talks with Kemp. Any person has every right to try and persuade an elected official to a position.

The talk with Raffensberger could easily be taken as going over the line. That talk devolved into trump trying to jam false issues into the office, notwithstanding the data involved. And further, what Trump noted about Raffensberger breaking the law was fundamentally false -- something that carries more than the weight of a false statement when coming literally from the mouth of the President.

As for 'cheating' -- I am positive that there was 'cheating' in all 51 voting jurisdictions. There always is. The litany of items you note above with respect to Georgia was the subject of at least 3 lawsuits -- none of them which could be taken beyond the 'insufficient evidence' stage.

I guess we can just assume there will be no Dem primaries resulting in a nominee in the future. If they do, why change it this time around?