Biden vs. Trump debate

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-02-2024, 06:38 PM)hollodero Wrote: Well, in this instance I feel you are downplaying the events by pointing to others allegedly contributing to said downplaying of the events. Imho, there's a point where Democrats overstating things, groups muddying the waters or the earnesty of the Capitol rioters can not really factor into the evaluation. Which is why I'm rather unconvinced by all those side fronts. Also, I have a hard time accepting the overstating the event's importance part. I can not even imagine that a chancellor here who lost an election would knowingly send violence-prone supporters to our parliament with a stolen election lie, and then would do nothing but send incendiary tweets while the parliament is already stormed and gallows are erected for someone who does not comply with chancellor's unlawful wishes of not certifying the results. This is actually stuff for the history books - including that Trump went off that free of consequence and sailed through the next primary.

The whole picture of the coup attempt, of course, goes even beyond Jan 6 and Trump's deeds and wishes on that day, it's also (and maybe even more clearly) Raffensperger and fake electors and then some. I'm fairly convinced that pretty much everyone would have called these things in their total sum a coup attempt in theory, without knowing about R or D and before they actually took place. It's only now that the R people rather imply that it was not that bad and the real scandal is that Democrats did not let Jim Jordan on the Jan 6 committee etc. All legitimate critizisms of faulty liberal narratives aside, I feel this is an instance where the conservative side deserves critizism for deflecting and belittling Trump's coup attempts by all rhetorical means necessary.

Which is also why I would keep asking what to call a clear effort to overthrow an unfavorable election, if not a coup attempt (eg because the military was not involved or because it did not succeed or whatever reason there is for not calling it a coup). 

I'm not really sure what you're disagreeing with me here.  I clearly labeled the event a coup attempt, as ham fisted as it was.  I also very clearly lay far more blame for the narrative on this subject on those affiliated with Trump.  I am simply saying that exaggerating the events ends up having the opposite effect.  This is especially true when "a threat to our democracy" becomes a bland talking point for the Dems regarding other topics and is overused to the point of absurdity.

The goal is to reach those people in the middle.  You've already got your base and you're not getting the base of the other party.  The Dem strategy in this regard has been poorly planned and executed, and it's a large part of the reason Trump is very likely to win in November.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(07-02-2024, 06:43 PM)hollodero Wrote: Well, he is prosecuted in Georgia for conspiracy to overturn the election results, and had Mrs. Willis not been so gleefully unprofessional that case might have had a good chance.

And conspiracy to overturn election results, imho, is akin to a coup attempt.

This is a loose interpretation of State laws, not Federal. 
The POTUS should not be subject to State laws for Federal issues. 

[hollodero]

(07-03-2024, 12:26 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm not really sure what you're disagreeing with me here.  I clearly labeled the event a coup attempt, as ham fisted as it was. I also very clearly lay far more blame for the narrative on this subject on those affiliated with Trump. I am simply saying that exaggerating the events ends up having the opposite effect. This is especially true when "a threat to our democracy" becomes a bland talking point for the Dems regarding other topics and is overused to the point of absurdity.

Well, the whole debate stems from contention whether coup attempt is an appropriate term. As for my disagreement with you, it's mainly about you saying that Democrats grossly overstate how serious the event was. I don't think so at all. Often on the contrary, I wonder why Biden did not mention much of anything about it, not fake electors, not the Raffensperger call, all the things that make Trump guilty of attempting a coup. Which, imho, is pretty much synonymous with seeing him as a threat to democracy, for coup attempts are most certainly that.
Can one really oversuse that narrative, I have to wonder. Biden gets called mentally gone and demented all the time now, is there a point where this narrative gets overused to the point of absurdity? That could save Biden if it were so, this narrative will get used plenty from now on, but I don't think it will save him.

(07-03-2024, 12:26 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The goal is to reach those people in the middle.  You've already got your base and you're not getting the base of the other party.  The Dem strategy in this regard has been poorly planned and executed, and it's a large part of the reason Trump is very likely to win in November.

I don't know about that really. In this instance, I tried to reach Mike after he claimed it was clearly not a coup attempt. I think it's benefitial to try to convince him otherwise, might he be the middle or the base, I don't even know that for sure. It's also benefitial, imho, to convince the democrat's base of Biden's apparent unfitness for office. The base nominates those folks in the first place. And the middle? If liberals now start to shut up about Jan 6 and all the other instances I mentioned, then the middle might just assume that it was indeed not all that bad and republicans were right all along. I do understand that this can be seen differently, but that would still be another point of disagreement with your take.
And imho Trump will win for different reasons, eg. his opponent, the system and then some. If it's overusing the threat to democracy narrative, I don't really think so.

[hollodero]

(07-03-2024, 03:31 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: This is a loose interpretation of State laws, not Federal. 
The POTUS should not be subject to State laws for Federal issues. 

Well, Trump tried to overturn the state's election results, I see nothing wrong with the state in question seeing that as unlawful in the state laws' eyes. But whether it's a state or federal issue really is a side front that does not tackle the more important issue, that what Trump did was indeed seen as a coup attempt and he actually got into legally hot waters over it, contrary to your claim that he did not.

I would ask you the question again what the correct term for Trump's deeds is, from fake electors to Raffensperger to Jan 6 behaviour etc., if you vehemently oppose the term "coup attempt". You called some of these schemes stupid, but imho that just does not really go far enough. Every politician does stupid. None barring Trump try to overthrow election results.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(07-03-2024, 09:48 AM)hollodero Wrote: Well, Trump tried to overturn the state's election results, I see nothing wrong with the state in question seeing that as unlawful in the state laws' eyes. But whether it's a state or federal issue really is a side front that does not tackle the more important issue, that what Trump did was indeed seen as a coup attempt and he actually got into legally hot waters over it, contrary to your claim that he did not.

I would ask you the question again what the correct term for Trump's deeds is, from fake electors to Raffensperger to Jan 6 behaviour etc., if you vehemently oppose the term "coup attempt". You called some of these schemes stupid, but imho that just does not really go far enough. Every politician does stupid. None barring Trump try to overthrow election results.

I understand that, and State laws should only apply to state elections.
POTUS is a Federal Election, and Federal Laws should be applied. 

And this is not the first time Fake Electors have been used. Dems have done it in 2 Elections and had no legal repercussions from it. Where do you think they got the Idea from?

I mean really if the Dems keep creating all these ways to bull rush their agenda's, and half the time, that shet comes back and bites them in the azz, once the R's flip the scale on them and then Dem's cry like babies claiming it's unfair. And I'm sure the R's have done the same as well. 

If both sides would just stop trying to 1up each other, and vote based on what's best then it would be a great system. but alas, it's Effed as is.

[hollodero]

(07-03-2024, 10:24 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I understand that, and State laws should only apply to state elections.
POTUS is a Federal Election, and Federal Laws should be applied. 

OK, I am out of my element on this one, I don't know where it belongs; I also feel whether it should have been in a federal court instead is not the important issue at hand.

(07-03-2024, 10:24 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: And this is not the first time Fake Electors have been used. Dems have done it in 2 Elections and had no legal repercussions from it. Where do you think they got the Idea from?

OK, I need to be educated on that one. I know about singular rogue electors that didn't vote the way that was demanded of them, and yes that is bizarre enough (and yet one more sign of how outdated and prone to betrayal the whole election system is). But, and that is just the way I understood it, they were just individuals trying to be smart, but never were part of a grand orchestrated scheme where a whole bunch of alternate electors was selected to obscure the results. If my take is correct and it was "just" things like that, then these instances don't really compare well.

(07-03-2024, 10:24 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: If both sides would just stop trying to 1up each other, and vote based on what's best then it would be a great system. but alas, it's Effed as is.

Yeah it just seems both sides have no interest in that, which imho makes the system not so great.

[Dill]

(07-02-2024, 02:57 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: By overstating it.  It being the first does not greaten, or lessen its severity.  If you used a scale from 1-100, 1 being no coup attempt at all and 100 being outright civil war then the Trump attempt would possibly break single digits, and not by much.  It doesn't make it better, but it doesn't make it as bad as people like you prefer to view it.   

"By overstating it" is a non-answer to the question of HOW such an event could be overstated.  

Your 1-100 scale is just a numerical metaphor expressing your impression that the first coup attempt in history, based on a delusion of millions of voters
which continues to the present and massively alters the shape of current US politics, was not all that. 

Nevermind that one consequence of attempts to hold Trump accountable is the ruling of Trump's SCOTUS that presidents are immune from criminal prosecution for any action which could remotely be construed as part of of their "core duties"--effectively writing protection of Trump into law. Another consequence of "first" coup whose effects you've dismissed as "four years ago."   

(07-02-2024, 02:57 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:And duped Trump supporters "legitimately" believed the election was stolen?

Of course.  Or are you prescient and know that every single one of them didn't actually believe the election was stolen?  That would be quite impressive.

Yes, if you are on one side and Luvnit is on the other I am most assuredly the "middle ground" as you chose to put it.

Quote:Seems to me more likely that a large segment of the population then and now has not grasped the implications of an attack on the foundational
legitimizing act of democratic government. Or they do and don't care. They are prepared to put the attacker back in office with greatly enhanced 
power, knowing his penchant for criminal, anti-democratic behavior.  

Seems to me you're just as hysterical as those you deride.  It's not just MAGA types who are ready to reinstall Trump as POTUS.  Your complete blindness to that being yet another symptom of your radical leanings.

If Trump supporters were swayed by a lie, then their beliefs were not "legitimate." Perhaps you meant "sincerely." I'd agree with that. And that's still a serious problem.

Nothing in my quoted statement suggests it's "MAGA types" alone who are ready to reinstall Trump because they have not grasped the implications of the coup.  Attributing to me a position which I haven't taken and then calling your attribution MY "complete blindness" is just a tactic, not an argument. 

As is positioning yourself in some "middle" between people who think the coup was immensely consequential for US politics and people who think it was not all that, while arguing it was not all that.

[Dill]

(07-03-2024, 10:49 AM)hollodero Wrote: OK, I am out of my element on this one, I don't know where it belongs; I also feel whether it should have been in a federal court instead is not the important issue at hand.

OK, I need to be educated on that one. I know about singular rogue electors that didn't vote the way that was demanded of them, and yes that is bizarre enough (and yet one more sign of how outdated and prone to betrayal the whole election system is). But, and that is just the way I understood it, they were just individuals trying to be smart, but never were part of a grand orchestrated scheme where a whole bunch of alternate electors was selected to obscure the results. If my take is correct and it was "just" things like that, then these instances don't really compare well.

Yeah it just seems both sides have no interest in that, which imho makes the system not so great.

Just to bring you up to speed, Hollo, federal elections are run by states, not the federal government. That's why states prosecute election fraud in their states. E.g., those responsible for Trump's forged slates of electors are prosecuted by state governments. 
https://www.npr.org/2022/01/25/1075304670/prosecutors-in-multiple-states-are-investigating-false-electoral-college-submiss

I think you are quite right that state/federal is not the real issue, if you mean that the real issue is that Trump should be held accountable somewhere for what he did, not re-elected for showing his willingness to break the law to stay in power.

As far as "whattabout Dems submitting lists of forged electors?"-- that's just more disinformation. E.g., in the case of Hawaii, 1960, there was a legitimate question of who won the state, Nixon or Kennedy, and so Dems prepared an "unofficial" slate transparently, above board, not in secret. When a recount showed definitively that Kennedy won, the Dems presented their slate, cleared by a judge, certified by the Hawaii governor, and sent to DC as Hawaii's legal and legitimate votes. It's only after you run it through 5 minutes of Fox/Newsmax commentary and all the relevant factors are eliminated that you get to "both sides do it."  But that's enough for a plurality of voters now.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/07/1960-electoral-college-certificates-false-trump-electors-00006186
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/politifactwisconsin/2023/12/15/fact-check-johnson-claim-dems-used-alternative-electors-repeatedly/71895208007/

A reminder: One side's presidential candidate attempted a coup and they want to re elect him. The other side wants him held accountable, and very much NOT re-elected given his criminal actions. That is not "both sides" just trying to "1up" each other instead of "voting what's best."

[Dill]

(07-02-2024, 06:26 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I'll be clearer this time so that you don't have to keep posting. The vaccines felt like a big pharma money grab to me. 

They could very well have been that. If you have a problem with that, then don't vote for the anti-regulatory party. 

But money grab or no, the vaccines were/are working, better than nothing. 

Additional point: Most of the complaints about how the medical experts said one thing in March and another in September and so "got it wrong" or "lied" just underscores the need for greater science literacy as a part of US education. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-03-2024, 09:39 AM)hollodero Wrote: Well, the whole debate stems from contention whether coup attempt is an appropriate term. As for my disagreement with you, it's mainly about you saying that Democrats grossly overstate how serious the event was. I don't think so at all. Often on the contrary, I wonder why Biden did not mention much of anything about it, not fake electors, not the Raffensperger call, all the things that make Trump guilty of attempting a coup. Which, imho, is pretty much synonymous with seeing him as a threat to democracy, for coup attempts are most certainly that.
Can one really oversuse that narrative, I have to wonder. Biden gets called mentally gone and demented all the time now, is there a point where this narrative gets overused to the point of absurdity? That could save Biden if it were so, this narrative will get used plenty from now on, but I don't think it will save him.

Of course you can overuse it.  Bush just used it to describe AIPAC.  Apparently for the Dems anything that doesn't work in their favor is "a threat to democracy."

Quote:I don't know about that really. In this instance, I tried to reach Mike after he claimed it was clearly not a coup attempt. I think it's benefitial to try to convince him otherwise, might he be the middle or the base, I don't even know that for sure. It's also benefitial, imho, to convince the democrat's base of Biden's apparent unfitness for office. The base nominates those folks in the first place. And the middle? If liberals now start to shut up about Jan 6 and all the other instances I mentioned, then the middle might just assume that it was indeed not all that bad and republicans were right all along. I do understand that this can be seen differently, but that would still be another point of disagreement with your take.
And imho Trump will win for different reasons, eg. his opponent, the system and then some. If it's overusing the threat to democracy narrative, I don't really think so.

Of course it was a coup attempt, a very poorly planned and executed coup plan but one nonetheless.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(07-03-2024, 11:41 AM)Dill Wrote: Just to bring you up to speed, Hollo, federal elections are run by states, not the federal government. That's why states prosecute election fraud in their states. E.g., those responsible for Trump's forged slates of electors are prosecuted by state governments. 
https://www.npr.org/2022/01/25/1075304670/prosecutors-in-multiple-states-are-investigating-false-electoral-college-submiss

I think you are quite right that state/federal is not the real issue, if you mean that the real issue is that Trump should be held accountable somewhere for what he did, not re-elected for showing his willingness to break the law to stay in power.

As far as "whattabout Dems submitting lists of forged electors?"-- that's just more disinformation. E.g., in the case of Hawaii, 1960, there was a legitimate question of who won the state, Nixon or Kennedy, and so Dems prepared an "unofficial" slate transparently, above board, not in secret. When a recount showed definitively that Kennedy won, the Dems presented their slate, cleared by a judge, certified by the Hawaii governor, and sent to DC as Hawaii's legal and legitimate votes. It's only after you run it through 5 minutes of Fox/Newsmax commentary and all the relevant factors are eliminated that you get to "both sides do it."  But that's enough for a plurality of voters now.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/07/1960-electoral-college-certificates-false-trump-electors-00006186
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/politifactwisconsin/2023/12/15/fact-check-johnson-claim-dems-used-alternative-electors-repeatedly/71895208007/

A reminder: One side's presidential candidate attempted a coup and they want to re elect him. The other side wants him held accountable, and very much NOT re-elected given his criminal actions. That is not "both sides" just trying to "1up" each other instead of "voting what's bestI

Then the Election of 1876, where the Dems used Fake Electors to halt the process as well.
How can it be disinformation if it happened and is a true statement, or is it just because it doesn't fit your current narrative? 


I mean seriously, when it comes to Hamas, history matters, but when it comes to Trump, it now doesn't? Make up your mind, You aren't looking like a man of principle as much as you look like a biased individual. tsk tsk

[hollodero]

(07-03-2024, 12:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Of course you can overuse it.  Bush just used it to describe AIPAC.  Apparently for the Dems anything that doesn't work in their favor is "a threat to democracy."

OK. You might call it a distinction without a difference maybe, but this imho is not so much an example of overusing it as it is an example of just misusing it for unrelated topics. Which, of course, is counterproductive, I don't deny that. I don't know about the quote at hand, but I don't really have to, I know full well that democrats (not just them) are quite masterful in doing that, eg. throwing racial questions into everything and then some, examples are plenty.
But the conclusion from that imho can not be that just because democratic politicians overused the racism accusation now means the topic of racism itself is diminished or miniscule for real. And in the same sense, I feel how many democrats did how much mis (or over-)using the 'threat to democracy' aspect now means there is no real actual threat to democracy. Imho, there clearly is, a coup attempt can't be anything but, and I would caution to take the eyes from the ball because Mrs. Bush and others tried to make political hay out of it. Critizism to her and all others that do so, but in the end it really is not about them. They don't deserve to be in this debate.

(07-03-2024, 12:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Of course it was a coup attempt, a very poorly planned and executed coup plan but one nonetheless.

Well, I don't mean it in a snarky way when I say tell that to Mike, who said it cearly is not that. It was my main intention for posting, you just crossed my path :)

[hollodero]

(07-03-2024, 11:41 AM)Dill Wrote: I think you are quite right that state/federal is not the real issue, if you mean that the real issue is that Trump should be held accountable somewhere for what he did, not re-elected for showing his willingness to break the law to stay in power.

Sure, it is about that. Though I would not advise anyone to not vote for the conservative candidate, I feel it's not my place to do so. Additionally, suggesting to a conservative leaning person to vote for Biden just got even tougher for me. I get full well why they would not do that. 
Mainly, I want to focus on how what Trump did imho can not be called anything but a coup attempt. By mentioning the Georgia trial, I was answering the question of if it were a coup, why isn't Trump indicted for it.

[Dill]

(07-03-2024, 01:29 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Then the Election of 1876, where the Dems used Fake Electors to halt the process as well.
How can it be disinformation if it happened and is a true statement, or is it just because it doesn't fit your current narrative? 

I mean seriously, when it comes to Hamas, history matters, but when it comes to Trump, it now doesn't?   Make up your mind, You aren't looking like a man of principle as much as you look like a biased individual. tsk tsk

Well I don't really contest that ONE time 148 years ago.  It happened and can be a "true statement," not disinformation, so long as
we recognize that even then it was not a coup attempt directed from the WH by staff and state party leaders who knew that, by their
own measurements, their president had lost and so were consciously breaking the law to hold on to power. * Rather, there were genuine
questions about the outcome in at least four states, and because the Constitution offered no path out of the confusion, both parties
agreed to a process for sorting it out. 

But I question the relevance of 1876 to the post 1945 era. And evidently so do your GOP fellow travelers, as they attempted to turn events like
like the perfectly legal management of electoral conflict in 1960 into actual disinformation about what happened then and on 1/6. 

And I'd say history matters as much or more when it comes to Trump. That's why I don't go around claiming 
"Dems did it too!" and then referring to historical examples in which Dems clearly DIDN'T do it too. 

Trump attempted to steal the 2020 election to illegally stay in power, while convincing tens of millions of voters that it was 
really "the left" which had stolen the election. That's history now, and yes it matters--especially now that those who still don't believe
Trump was willing to break the law to retain power, or don't care, are prepared to elect him to another term with massively expanded immunity
from criminal prosecution. To save them from "the left." 

*There is another comparison to the present, though. Haye's win ended Reconstruction and set Southern states to passing laws which restricted the vote
without mentioning race.  After 1/6 we've seen a current surge of legislation to protect "voter integrity" based on claims Dems are the threat to
valid elections, not the guy attempted the greatest election fraud in US history--and continues to demand that all who serve him affirm the fraud.

[FormerlyBengalRugby]

(07-03-2024, 05:36 PM)Dill Wrote: Trump attempted to steal the 2020 election to illegally stay in power, while convincing tens of millions of voters that it was 
really "the left" which had stolen the election. That's history now, and yes it matters--especially now that those who still don't believe
Trump was willing to break the law to retain power, or don't care, are prepared to elect him to another term with massively expanded immunity
from criminal prosecution. To save them from "the left." 

A convenient "forget" of the left is the lies and media suppression, strong armed by the government, that likely swayed millions of voters away from DJT and into the Biden camp...

Pushing the Charlottesville lie.

Suppressing the laptop story.

Shadow banning and suppressing republican, conservative, and DJT supporters and stories on social media and promoting left leaning liberal, democrats supporters and stories.


Then the hilarity ensues when they talk about a coup, when they basically staged one in 2020, only utilizing lies and social media. Not to mention cries of Russian influence, but those same mouths are shut when discussing the influence of strong armed social media on their behalf...

[Luvnit2]

(07-03-2024, 12:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Of course you can overuse it.  Bush just used it to describe AIPAC.  Apparently for the Dems anything that doesn't work in their favor is "a threat to democracy."




Of course it was a coup attempt, a very poorly planned and executed coup plan but one nonetheless.

In order for it to be a coup attempt, it must be planned. You say it was planned. Who planned it and did the DOJ charge them?

[hollodero]

(07-03-2024, 01:29 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Then the Election of 1876, where the Dems used Fake Electors to halt the process as well.
How can it be disinformation if it happened and is a true statement, or is it just because it doesn't fit your current narrative? 

But in all seriousness, something that happened back in 1876, around 150 years ago when the current parties are unrecognizable, can not be possibly any kind of excuse or justification for what Trump did in the year 2020. I get that this is not solely about that and also about being right about it (I suppose you are), but I still want to stick to the initial premise. Which is that an organized fake elector scheme was neither warranted nor does it align with the idea of US democracy.

[Luvnit2]

(07-03-2024, 06:08 PM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: A covenant "forget" of the left is the lies and media suppression, strong armed by the government, that likely swayed millions of voters away from DJT and into the Biden camp...

Pushing the Charlottesville lie.

Suppressing the laptop story.

Shadow banning and suppressive republican, conservative, and DJT supporters on social media.


Then the hilarity ensues when they talk about a coup, when they basically staged one in 2020, only utilizing lies and social media. Not to mention cries of Russian influence, but those same mouths are shut when discussing the influence of strong armed social media on their behalf...

I agree with everything you said, but I would call it lection interference by the left media, Biden and members of his team and sadly our justice department.

The problem of why it was not charged was the Justice department can shield all indictments. They did just that.

People need to wake up and quit being distracted by the attacks on DJT. The left-wing media, DNC, Biden and DOJ are the deep state. Heck, the left-wing media, DNC and Jill Biden attempted to hide Jie Biden's obvious mental decline. They ignored it. 

What does that tell us about the left-wing media? It tells us Trump has been 100% correct, they are 'Fake News". We aren't talking about getting 1 story wrong by accident. They are using the power of the press to interfere in an election year after year. Hopefully Independents see it and make them pay at the ballot box in November. It is the only way the collusion of the fake news media and the DNC has a shot at coming to an end. 

RFK Jr. suffered from the fake news media as well the second he ran as an Independent. It is not just against the GOP, it against Independents as well.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-03-2024, 06:21 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: In order for it to be a coup attempt, it must be planned. You say it was planned. Who planned it and did the DOJ charge them?

Planning can consist of literally one meeting, e.g. call the GA attorney general and tell them to find votes.  That's planning.  As to why no one is charged, such things are difficult to prove unless someone directly involved steps forward and dimes the rest out.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-03-2024, 11:00 AM)Dill Wrote: "By overstating it" is a non-answer to the question of HOW such an event could be overstated.  

Your 1-100 scale is just a numerical metaphor expressing your impression that the first coup attempt in history, based on a delusion of millions of voters
which continues to the present and massively alters the shape of current US politics, was not all that. 

Nevermind that one consequence of attempts to hold Trump accountable is the ruling of Trump's SCOTUS that presidents are immune from criminal prosecution for any action which could remotely be construed as part of of their "core duties"--effectively writing protection of Trump into law. Another consequence of "first" coup whose effects you've dismissed as "four years ago."   


If Trump supporters were swayed by a lie, then their beliefs were not "legitimate." Perhaps you meant "sincerely." I'd agree with that. And that's still a serious problem.

Nothing in my quoted statement suggests it's "MAGA types" alone who are ready to reinstall Trump because they have not grasped the implications of the coup.  Attributing to me a position which I haven't taken and then calling your attribution MY "complete blindness" is just a tactic, not an argument. 

As is positioning yourself in some "middle" between people who think the coup was immensely consequential for US politics and people who think it was not all that, while arguing it was not all that.

If the lie was believable their beliefs were legitimate.  All of this is extremely consequential to you because you're a "our democracy is at stake" doomsayer.  Most people don't subscribe to your point of view.  And rightfully so, IMO.