Election Challenges, Protests, Conspiracy Theories, and Moral Panics

[GMDino]

(12-10-2020, 04:49 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I'm still waiting on all that interesting stuff his investigators found about Obama's birth certificate.  What was that, 5 years ago?  He sure likes to draw things out.

Right after that middle class tax cut from 2018 and Trump's health care plan.

Probably two more weeks.

[GMDino]

Texas lawmakers on the Texas lawsuit:
Sen. John Cornyn: "I frankly struggle to understand the legal theory of it."
Rep. Kay Granger: “I'm not supporting it...It's a distraction.”
Rep. Chip Roy: "I believe the case itself represents a dangerous violation of federalism."

— Kaitlan Collins (@kaitlancollins) December 10, 2020

 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-10-2020, 04:42 PM)GMDino Wrote: Yeah, why put someone in prison who should be there?  Again strange take from the law enforcement officer.

Are you illiterate or something?  This has been explained by both myself and Bel.

Quote:Then why did you say it?  Just to be wrong?

I'm not wrong for reasons already stated.  You disagree, which is fine, but that doesn't make me wrong.

Quote:It appeared to be appropriate in this instanc
It doesn't bother me.  It bothered you and someone else.  Found it strange that you used it now.

I'd have to see the context to know, but thank you for complaining about something your weren't complaining about.

Quote:Yet, once again you provide nothing to support it.  Just like how you "just ask" for things and never do the work yourself.  Frankly it jsut get boring to read "as others have said" and "plenty have said".  Sound just like Trump.

Dear god you can be thick at times (I won't use obtuse as I learned it from a movie).  It's been explained to you by both Bel and myself.  You have zero counter argument to the points we both made either than "you want" and "in a perfect world".  Your reiteration of the same nonsense is past tiring.

Quote:I'm greatly valued.  "Many people have said" and "it's been said before".  

Mom's always think their sons are valuable.

[GMDino]

Senate GOP Whip John Thune sounds skeptical about Texas challenge to other states election results: "I just don't know why a state like Texas, which never wants anybody telling them what to do, now wants to tell a bunch of other states how to run their elections."

— Alex Bolton (@alexanderbolton) December 10, 2020

[GMDino]

The incomparable @JohnFetterman on the laughably dumb lawsuit by TX and other GOP AGs:

"Let's be honest, this is all just an arms race among Republicans to see who can simp harder for the President" pic.twitter.com/SUhPKepidE

— Mike Gwin (@MichaelJGwin) December 10, 2020

 

[GMDino]

Pennsylvania has entered the chat and wrote "cash me outside howbow dah?" https://t.co/oyAKbibR31

— Virginia Montanez (@JanePitt) December 10, 2020

 

[*Nately120*]

(12-10-2020, 05:41 PM)GMDino Wrote:

Senate GOP Whip John Thune sounds skeptical about Texas challenge to other states election results: "I just don't know why a state like Texas, which never wants anybody telling them what to do, now wants to tell a bunch of other states how to run their elections."

— Alex Bolton (@alexanderbolton) December 10, 2020

It's "DON'T MESS WITH TEXAS!" not "TEXAS DON'T MESS WITH YOU!"

[GMDino]

⚖️JUST IN: New amicus brief from 106 Republican House members in support of Texas' bid to overturn President-elect Joe Biden's win in the Supreme Court. Here they are? pic.twitter.com/QLN4jDfoto

— John Kruzel (@johnkruzel) December 10, 2020

?"This brief presents [our] concern as Members of Congress, shared by untold millions of their constituents, that the unconstitutional irregularities involved in the 2020 presidential election cast doubt upon its outcome and the integrity of the American system of elections." pic.twitter.com/L2G4EWQvTc

— John Kruzel (@johnkruzel) December 10, 2020

 

[GMDino]

Hard to believe but it's not looking good for Trump in WI.

Mandel ends with remarks about Trump's "profoundly antidemocratic" and "frankly absurd" request.

He ends by talking about the people left out of Trump's counsel's presentation: the 3.3 million voters whom the president wants to disenfranchise.

— Adam Klasfeld (@KlasfeldReports) December 10, 2020

 

[Big Boss]

So Kaepernick exercising free speech by kneeling during the National Anthem is unpatriotic, but all this talk of sedition and civil war because an election didn't go our way is totes fine? Am I understanding right?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-10-2020, 06:57 PM)Big Boss Wrote: So Kaepernick exercising free speech by kneeling during the National Anthem is unpatriotic, but all this talk of sedition and civil war because an election didn't go our way is totes fine?  Am I understanding right?

I would say that the answer to both of those questions would depend wholly on who you are asking.

[GMDino]

(12-10-2020, 06:57 PM)Big Boss Wrote: So Kaepernick exercising free speech by kneeling during the National Anthem is unpatriotic, but all this talk of sedition and civil war because an election didn't go our way is totes fine?  Am I understanding right?

He interrupted people peeing and ordering food during the National Anthem.  Real Americans won't stand for that.  

[GMDino]

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/trump-lawyers-switch-gears-claim-fraud-undetectable-n1250717?cid=sm_fb_maddow&fbclid=IwAR3iryoi2qW2oHNMcaUq5TpxAzbDcusBzh3bLkvrFMN_Uc3L21k6zhvt2FM

Quote:[color=var(--gray-100)][color=var(--gray-80)]Dec. 10, 2020, 11:21 AM EST[/color]
By Steve Benen[/color]
[color=var(--gray-100)]
At his campaign rally in Georgia over the weekend, Donald Trump acknowledged the reports that he lacks any evidence of actual fraud in the 2020 elections. The outgoing president, however, insisted his detractors are wrong.[/color]
[color=var(--gray-100)]
"We have so much evidence," the Republican claimed, adding, "They say, 'Oh, he doesn't have the evidence.' We have so much evidence, we don't know what to do with it."

Trump pushed a related message via Twitter yesterday morning, insisting there's "massive evidence of widespread fraud" in the states targeted by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's lawsuit.[/color]
[color=var(--gray-100)]
But a funny thing happened a few hours later. After publishing a tweet in the morning about the "massive evidence of widespread fraud," the president and his controversial lawyer released a court filing making largely the opposite point:
[/color]

Quote:[color=var(--gray-60)]"Despite the chaos of election night and the days which followed, the media has consistently proclaimed that no widespread voter fraud has been proven. But this observation misses the point. The constitutional issue is not whether voters committed fraud but whether state officials violated the law by systematically loosening the measures for ballot integrity so that fraud becomes undetectable."
[/color]

Oh. So the initial claim was Team Trump has evidence of fraud, but the new claim is that the evidence is "undetectable," which is why no one can see it.


Let's back up for a moment. Let's say I told you that Bigfoot is real. To be sure, Bigfoot is not real, but for the sake of conversation, let's say I was trying to convince you otherwise.
Recommended
You'd naturally ask for some kind of evidence. Initially, I'd respond by saying I have so much evidence of Bigfoot's existence that I hardly know what to do with all of it. But once the conversation progresses, I'd switch gears and say, "You know, asking for evidence misses the point. Bigfoot covers his tracks, making his existence undetectable, which I believe is itself proof that Bigfoot is real."

At this point, you'd probably stop listening to my argument about Bigfoot, which would be the appropriate response.
And yet, this is the point at which we've arrived with Donald Trump and his claims about voter fraud.

As a Washington Post analysis added this morning, "It's not the first time the Trump team has watered down its claims of fraud when actually faced with vouching for them in legal proceedings.... But it's certainly telling that it's now proactively dispatching with that question and shifting its legal argument in a completely different direction. If this was truly what happened, after all, why spend weeks talking about evidence of fraud rather than that? The reason: It wanted to prove fraud, but it couldn't. So now it's doing this other thing."

[BmorePat87]

It's really embarrassing for the 106 Republicans who signed onto this laughable legal challenge that alleges that Biden had a 1 in 4 quadrillion to the 4th power chance of winning these 4 states, but it's also hard to laugh at this because 106 members of Congress are asking the Supreme Court to name Donald Trump the winner of the election because they do not like the results.

We've sat through 4 years of being told that criticism of Trump's increasingly undemocratic and dangerous rhetoric was a mental disorder on our part, yet here we are.

Credit to some leading Texas Republicans who have rejected this out, but a number of big name House Republicans have signed on calling for this complete rejection of election results. It was one thing when it was just Trump and his band of disgraced lawyers calling for this. Now we have over half of the House GOP caucus and multiple states calling for our courts to outright just ignore the will of the voters of multiple states because they don't like the results.

This is just a low moment in our history

[GMDino]

(12-10-2020, 07:59 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: It's really embarrassing for the 106 Republicans who signed onto this laughable legal challenge that alleges that Biden had a 1 in 4 quadrillion to the 4th power chance of winning these 4 states, but it's also hard to laugh at this because 106 members of Congress are asking the Supreme Court to name Donald Trump the winner of the election because they do not like the results.

We've sat through 4 years of being told that criticism of Trump's increasingly undemocratic and dangerous rhetoric was a mental disorder on our part, yet here we are.

Credit to some leading Texas Republicans who have rejected this out, but a number of big name House Republicans have signed on calling for this complete rejection of election results. It was one thing when it was just Trump and his band of disgraced lawyers calling for this. Now we have over half of the House GOP caucus and multiple states calling for our courts to outright just ignore the will of the voters of multiple states because they don't like the results.

This is just a low moment in our history

Yes but if we criticize him what about the millions of people who like him?!?!  Don't we risk alienating a bunch of people devoid of a sense of reality and beholden to one man over their country?

Have you even considered that?!?!

[Belsnickel]

(12-10-2020, 07:59 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: It's really embarrassing for the 106 Republicans who signed onto this laughable legal challenge that alleges that Biden had a 1 in 4 quadrillion to the 4th power chance of winning these 4 states, but it's also hard to laugh at this because 106 members of Congress are asking the Supreme Court to name Donald Trump the winner of the election because they do not like the results.

We've sat through 4 years of being told that criticism of Trump's increasingly undemocratic and dangerous rhetoric was a mental disorder on our part, yet here we are.

Credit to some leading Texas Republicans who have rejected this out, but a number of big name House Republicans have signed on calling for this complete rejection of election results. It was one thing when it was just Trump and his band of disgraced lawyers calling for this. Now we have over half of the House GOP caucus and multiple states calling for our courts to outright just ignore the will of the voters of multiple states because they don't like the results.

This is just a low moment in our history

Every last one of them should face censure for violating their oath to uphold the Constitution.

[Au165]

(12-10-2020, 10:00 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Every last one of them should face censure for violating their oath to uphold the Constitution.

For me, it’s already a complete breakdown of their oath, and a complete embarrassment, but I want to see where they go to after SCOTUS rejects the lawsuit. I honestly believe each should be charged with sedition if it goes beyond this. They have been allowed to challenge all claims as far as they legally can, further talk of pushing back against the legally administered election and its results should be met with force equal to the danger they are putting our democracy in.

[Belsnickel]

(12-10-2020, 10:06 PM)Au165 Wrote: For me, it’s already a complete breakdown of their oath, and a complete embarrassment, but I want to see where they go to after SCOTUS rejects the lawsuit. I honestly believe each should be charged with sedition if it goes beyond this. They have been allowed to challenge all claims as far as they legally can, further talk of pushing back against the legally administered election and its results should be met with force equal to the danger they are putting our democracy in.

The sedition angle is hyperbolic, but they are for sure violating the oaths of office that they took.

[Au165]

(12-10-2020, 10:12 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The sedition angle is hyperbolic, but they are for sure violating the oaths of office that they took.

Not hyperbolic at all. Meets the statute of seditious conspiracy to a T. If this scenario does not fall within the reason for making such a law then what does? What else do you call a group of people conspiring to attempt to overthrow a legally elected President? Again, I am not there yet, as I said this is in reference to further actions beyond a SCOTUS ruling as nothing after that can be argued as within anyone’s “legal right” .

I would have said to charge with advocating to overthrow the government but that statute is written in a way requiring violence, or urging of such, which hasn’t been apparent as of yet. Seditious conspiracy only requires an attempt to overthrow but does not require violence.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-10-2020, 10:20 PM)Au165 Wrote: Not hyperbolic at all. Meets the statute of seditious conspiracy to a T. If this scenario does not fall within the reason for making such a law then what does? What else do you call a group of people conspiring to attempt to overthrow a legally elected President? Again, I am not there yet, as I said this is in reference to further actions beyond a SCOTUS ruling as nothing after that can be argued as within anyone’s “legal right” .

I would have said to charge with advocating to overthrow the government but that statute is written in a way requiring violence, or urging of such, which hasn’t been apparent as of yet. Seditious conspiracy only requires an attempt to overthrow but does not require violence.

While you have an argument, your proposed course of action would only feed the beast.  This is temporary, treat it as such.