and Trump should pay for his choices, actions and words. I mean is their any doubt that he encouraged and is encouraging people to rebel against the US Government, the States Governments, The Laws, The Processes, the Civil Servants, etc?
Sedition: conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state
Definitely something that a President should not be doing. I mean imagine the out cry we would have heard if Obama had declared Hillary winner in 2016, and told people to rise up and fight the legal process at the steps of the Capitol Building?
The only thing that puzzles me is why do ~41% of Americans still support him?
He is not a "patriot" working to free us from England, he is a seditionist working to undermine our country's stability. And yet people still support him and apparently his sedition?
The big question is what is the GOP going to do? Are we going to let Trump's cronies drag the party down with him or are we going to say "enough is enough" and cut him loose?
The good news is that the banks, donors, corporations and pretty much every main stream group is running from him like he has the plague... :-)
60 comments:
Do your parents still support him? Do you attempt to influence their views?
We have pretty well adopted a "don't ask, don't tell policy"
The last time I visited them they would sneak off to the other room to watch FOX News.
And they certainly do not ask my views unless it is late and they are crabby.
I would assume that unless Rush Limbaugh, the Fox Five and Gutfield have changed their views, my Parent's still support Trump and think Biden is in office due to fraud and trickery.
What do you think of all the GOP perpetators of the big lie that the election was stolen. More than half the GOP leaders in the house voted in favor of this lie even after the insurrection. Cruz and Hawley are the worst.
I assume they are just political hacks voting the views of the people who elected them in attempt to raise money and "win votes".
I mean what is in it for them if they vote against Trump in any way?
I mean other than a clean conscience... Did I mention that most politicians are slime... :-)
Where elected officials should represent the voters or their consciences ia an ancient political debate. People routinely tell me ours is a republic not a democracy. In my personal, view that question isn't quite so simple. I think democracy and republic are at opposite ends of a continuum, one on which we have moved back and forth in our history. The more responsive our government is to the popular will, the closer we are to democracy, the further we are away from republic. Our government was founded by men who were deeply suspicious of the popular will. The government they created was well along the Republic side of the continuum. Ever since then, we have been moving away from republican and closer to democracy.
Edmund Burke is famous today for arguing that elected officials should act according to their consciences. But he was an 18th century guy, like all the founders, and shared in the anti democratic prejudices of that era. He was also the political product which at that time was still almost completely insulated from the popular will, so it was pretty easy to take the views he did. I don't know a lot about his personal politics, but it's just possible that while not responsive to the popular will, he did listen more carefully to the land owners who did dominate the politics of that time.
--Hiram
Deny reality if you will. The election WAS stolen, there is adequate proof; I was an eye-witness, and people have a right to be angry. The only reason I still read your claptrap is to see how far into Trump Derangement Syndrome you have fallen.
Hiram,
I unfortunately am starting to think that a pure democracy would be problematic.
Currently we have a large population who is certain that government is there to keep minorities down.
And we have a large population who think government is out to harm them and commit fraud. (ie Jerry and Friends)
I sure am not a fan of either delusional group running the country.
It seems that citizens run too hot and cold, and are easily swayed by thought leaders.
How does that go again. "democracy is the worst form of government except all the others." :-(
Jerry,
I understand that you believe what you thought you saw.
Unfortunately for you courts rely on facts, data, proof, etc and ~60 courts found your sides proof lacking.
If the DEMs claimed fraud and 60 courts ruled against them, what would you be writing?
You are always welcome here. :-)
Everything is problematic. And our sytem of government has been failing for a long time. The process of failure is simply becoming more visible.
Now I of course resist any form of the statement, "both sides do it." It's a tactic to allow one side to project it's faults on the other side. Clearly, what's wrong with our country is the Republican Party who betrayed us all by irresponsbly choosing someone who was manifestly unfit for office as their candidate for president. We are in a comparable situation to Germany after WW II. How do we proceed in a country where 74 million people voted for a proto tyrant?
--Hiram
Apparently one man's "tyrant" is another man's "savior"...
about "The election WAS stolen, there is adequate proof" I am curious as to what this proof, is as everything that I read says there is zero evidence.
I hope Jerry answers your question.
"...everything that I read says there is zero evidence."
Then you either need to check your information sources or your reading comprehension.
"Unfortunately for you courts rely on facts, data, proof, etc and ~60 courts found your sides proof lacking."
Everything I KNOW finds that most of these courts dismissed the charges on technicalities, without ever hearing the evidence. In several cases, for example, the courts denied challenges to the election for lack of "standing" because the election had not yet been certified. Then, after the election was certified, the courts denied the challenge on account of "laches," meaning that plaintiffs had not applied for relief in a timely manner. And an army of high-priced Biden lawyers saw to it.
HIram, how do we proceed in a country where one political party dominates the communications with the Big Lie, steals an election, and plans a ruinous and highly divisive public policy agenda? For example, what else would you call the attempt to impeach Trump again, at this late date?
The problem Giuliani et al. had with their pleadings is that the pleadings themselves did not allege fraud. That was the technicality they were dismissed on. A lawyer can say anything he wants before news cameras, but when he signs a pleading, as an officer of the court, he is asserting that what is in it is at least arguably true.
Maybe 160 million people voted in the last presidential election. There are bound to be problems, and those problems can be turned into affidavits. I am sure both parties could produce tens or even hundreds of thousands of affidavits asserting that what happened on election day on certain occasions was less than optimal. But that is something that has been true since the dawn of time, and if we gave full scrutiny to every such affidavit, we would still be examing the election of 1808.
And by the way, surely Republican conserns about election integrity and fraud were forever undermined and discredited by the tapes that emerged of the leader of their party asking in so many words, the Republican Secretary of State of Georgia to "recalculate" the votes such that he would make up the 12,000 votes he needed to win the state. I resist the "What if Obama" argument as much as I can, but really can you imagine the outrage from Republicans if Obama had been caught, on tape, asking votes to be recalculated?
--Hiram
Jerry,
I think Laurie would like some real proof, not critique of her news sources.
Biden won by 4 states and 7+ million votes. Nothing I have heard even comes close to explaining that away. Except for the usual GOP voter suppression advocacy.
You know the one. "Secretary of States should not have been able to make it easier to vote remotely due to COVID. Legislative action should have been required."
If Obama had repeatedly made false claims about the US voting system, refused to acknowledge his loss and had encouraged people to surround / storm the US Capitol... What punishment would you have recommended?
Here is some info supporting our assessments
how do we proceed in a country where one political party dominates the communications with the Big Lie, steals an election, and plans a ruinous and highly divisive public policy agenda? For example, what else would you call the attempt to impeach Trump again, at this late date?
How do we proceed when in a country when one party puts forward an unprincipled thug as their nominee for leadershiup?
If one party chooses to be divisive, no agenda put forward by the other party can do anything other than divide us. The divisive issue of the last decade was health care. Yet, what was the nature of the division. One party had a proposal. It passed, only because at one brief moment in time, one party controlled 60% of the senate, hardly evidence of division in our polarized country. So what since then has been the nature of the division? Republican repealed health care numerous time, but how many legislative alternatives did they propose? Exactly none. So that presents a basic question in linquistics, possibly even in logic for you logic fans. Can it be possible for there to be division on an issue when one side doesn't even show up?
--Hiram
My party is a party that wants to govern. We are the pro government party. We aren't impressed by arguments of federalism. Our impulse isn't to let some other guy or some other entity do it. You may disagree with that. Even I get aggravated with that sometimes. It's a belief system, that can quite reasonably do with some moderating on occasion which is why I so strongly favor a two party system. What we are not is a divisive paety, a party that seeks to conquer by dividing. The reason for this is quite simple and even obvious. Te get things done, we need support from the other side. Not a lot of support, but we need some, and to get this we can't make enemies gratuitously.
--Hiram
By the way, here is why Trump Lawyers did not claim fraud in the court rooms
It's isn't exactly helpful in the law, in government, or in life, to view the truth as just another technicality.
What I think is true, but what Republicans don't want to say, is that the "fraud" they see, is the fact in this election, it was relatively easy to vote. This was a nonsuppression election with exactly the results Republicans feared. Vastly more Americans voted in the presidential election, and both parties saw huge increases in their vote totals. The predictable result is that Democrats did better. This completely supports the conventional wisdom of both parties that higher turnout benefits Democrats.
What I expect to see in every Republican controlled state is increased "voter security" measures, which will make it harder, often much harder to vote, with a corresponding reduction in turnout. Republicans are not wrong in their view that if they don't some way of preventing people from voting, they will not winthe popular vote in a presidential election in the foreseeable future. As it is, they have won it only once since 1988.
==Hiram
The GOP has disappointed me in many ways lately, but this obsession with trying to make it hard for legal citizens to vote is one of the worst.
"...how do we proceed in a country where one political party dominates the communications with the Big Lie..."
Oh...do piss off. You are in no position to claim that the OTHER party is promoting the Big Lie when it's YOUR party and the people YOU support that fomented an insurrection based upon the BIG LIE of a stolen election.
You don't get to do that.
Just how far up Trump's ass do you intend to crawl?
Moose
I observe that your citation includes Minnesota, a case obviously dismissed, as I know and stated, on a technicality (or two). I note this was defended by a bevy of high-priced East Coast attorneys, and one wonders why that should have been necessary.
And the notion of "voter fraud" is and always was a deflection. Fraud involves an individual knowingly voting in an illegal manner. It does not apply to the numerous and flagrant violations of Minnesota election law that took place at the official level, and the eyewitness accounts of same. The correct term is "stealing an election" or more properly, "violating MN law and invalidating the results."
The ruling was apparently unanimous.
And as I said, MVA was just trying to disqualify votes by citizens on technicalities
Shame on MVA !!! We want more legal citizens voting, not fewer.
I love this CYA phrase they add...
"To be clear, the MVA is not saying there was fraud or irregularities that changed the outcome of a specific race, though"
If no race was impacted... Why again are they wasting our tax dollars on frivolous law suits?
Moose, you don't get to say the election wasn't stolen without evidence, nor to define insurrection to suit your very warped viewpoint. You've become almost as delusional and deranged as G2A. And to what purpose? The terribly divisive language and obvious hatred should have no place in our civilized society. Suppressing speech that somebody doesn't like is a dangerous affront, call it a seditious or traitorous assault on our republic. Disagree? You are free to not listen, or to talk back, but not to suppress.
What took place was a "mostly peaceful protest," just like those in Minneapolis or Portland, only more peaceful by comparison.
If there was massive cheating and violation of the law, should we not care, regardless of the true result? Do we have a right to know the TRUE result of the election?
Jerry,
The People have voted.
The Local officials collected and counted the votes.
The State officials have certified their results.
The Courts have reviewed the counter claims.
The US Congress has certified the results.
Therefore the true result of the election is known and certified by our government. (ie the state)
If there is any sedition going on, it is on your part.
"sedition: conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state"
Our "State" has followed its rules and processes, and declared a winner by a wide margin.
Please feel free to incite people to rebel, but don't pretend that you hold the high ground.
And as for "insurrection: a violent uprising against an authority or government."
Of course, both the BLM and Capitol protests can meet that definition.
Neither group is wearing the white hat in that regard.
Fraud involves an individual knowingly voting in an illegal manner.
I just don't know of any instances of that happening. I am sure there are cases where people screwed up. Voting without reregistering after a move, that sort of thing. But that just doesn't happen enough to influence the outcome, Believe me, it's hard enough to get people to vote legally.
--Hiram
"it's hard enough to get people to vote legally." -- Hiram
Then perhaps you can explain the apparent 90% turnout in the last election?
"Our "State" has followed its rules and processes, and declared a winner by a wide margin." -- John.
Sheer and utter nonsense. For just one example, State law requires a witness signature on absentee ballots. For another, State law requires a balance of election judges from opposing parties in each precinct and on every absentee ballot board. I point out to you the old adage that "it doesn't matter who votes, but who COUNTS the votes," so I want you to explain something to me. In the recount I observed, Joe Biden "officially" had ~900 votes. There were a total of ~200 ballots with Joe Biden's name marked. The final tally reported "less than 0.5% error" and the "official" number of 900 was certified.
Jerry,
I assume you pursued your concern.
What were you told was the rationale for their numbers being different than yours?
By the way, Biden won the urban centers and the iron range.
No surprises there. Did you really think Trump would take our Northern bastion of Liberal thought?
You can blame Sean for Biden's win, the SW burbs apparently flipped.
This guys says it all... Trump was his own worse enemy and took the GOP with him.
"As some protests over police brutality and systemic racism descended into vandalism and looting in Minneapolis over the summer, President Donald Trump insisted that he was the candidate to restore “law and order” to the city. In the nearby suburb of Chaska, Minnesota, Mike Magusin bristled. In his view, he said, the president had fuelled the unrest.
“He’s said plenty of stupid, stupid things that upset people deeply,” Mr Magusin, 51, said. “That’s what’s dangerous, because people are upset. They’re struggling. And here’s this guy making it even worse with his words.”
Four years ago, Mr Magusin voted for the Green Party candidate, in part because he assumed the nation would be mostly fine even if Mr Trump won. This year, he left nothing to chance.
Even though he was not excited about Joe Biden, Mr Magusin cast his ballot for him, helping the president-elect become the first Democratic presidential candidate to win Chaska in nearly 25 years."
"What were you told was the rationale for their numbers being different than yours?"
First of all, I used the official SOS numbers. Second, the SOS admitted we had the highest turnout in history of "eligible voters" at 80% (almost incredibly high), but the percentage of REGISTERED voters was over 90%, and in some areas over 100%. Really?
"This guys says it all... Trump was his own worse enemy and took the GOP with him."
Again, you have no familiarity with nor comprehension of the real numbers. Statewide, Trump got about 70,000 FEWER votes than any Republican. Biden got about 70,000 MORE votes than any Democrat. There are three possibilities: 1)70,000 Republicans split the ticket-- possible but unlikely. 2) The voting machines switched 70,000 votes from Trump to Biden. or 3) There were 70,000 ballots with ONLY Biden on them. Some combination is of course possible, but your statement is flat-out wrong.
"I assume you pursued your concern."
Yep, joined in a lawsuit, dismissed on a technicality; evidence never heard. Threatened if we pursued an appeal.
Jerry,
Enough vague generalities. What about this specific difference of opinion?
"In the recount I observed, Joe Biden "officially" had ~900 votes. There were a total of ~200 ballots with Joe Biden's name marked. The final tally reported "less than 0.5% error" and the "official" number of 900 was certified."
Does MVA have there "proof" posted somewhere?
I have no doubt that there were 70,000 split ticket voters. I was one of them.
This is an interesting map
As for voter turn out that looks pretty normal...
https://www.startribune.com/how-was-minnesota-voter-turnout-by-county-here-are-the-results/400819861/
Vague generalities? I have a copy of the official recount and certification in my hand. But I guess you can deny reality with the best of them. "Friend, either you're closing your eyes to a situation you do not wish to acknowledge or you are not aware of the caliber of disaster indicated by [having Democrats run elections]" -- Prof. Harold Hill
And soon, the disaster indicated by having Democrats "WIN" elections.
So if it is so clear...
Why aren't you and MVA posting the data and letting the public decided?
Posting where? Here, where anything not fitting the Democrat official narrative is simply dismissed, ignored, disparaged? In the corrupt media, where the same occurs, or on Big Tech, where the same thing occurs? I have an idea for you. Why don't you label your next post the "Two Minute Hate"? It would save time.
Right here... MN Voters Alliance
They have their own web page and can post all their proof for people to evaluate.
Instead... Vague generalities about technicalities.
Again, Vague generalities? I know about MVA, but I had not seen this particular page. EVERYTHING on it is undeniably true (though you will deny it) and points to the potential for massive "improper voting." Some are still in court (or will be again), but again, may be dismissed on technicalities like "lack of standing" or "laches." Why do you insist this election was properly conducted? Do you hate half of us that much?
There is the potential that someone could rob my house.
That does not mean that my house was robbed.
"potential for massive "improper voting."
The reality is that the election was free and fair.
No one has proved otherwise.
Trump was simply a TERRIBLE candidate and he lost.
Do you hate the 55% of Americans that detest Trump so much that you are willing to suppress voting on technicalities and work to undermine confidence in America and its democracy?
If Obama had cried foul and fought the election results in 2016, would you have praised or condemned him?
Both sides seem to be into attacking our country and democracy, but Trump and his supporters are taking it to a whole new extreme. Which is very unfortunate for our country. :-(
"The reality is that the election was free and fair."
And yet I have the proof it was otherwise, and much of the proof has never actually been heard in court. Sorry, but "Denial" is still a river in Egypt. You have no proof.
"Suppress votes on technicalities"??? ROFL! You mean technicalities like following election laws? Like insuring a free and fair election by having citizen volunteers from opposing parties witness all of the voting and counting? If Democrats had accused Republicans of all this chicanery, would you be so quick to condemn them? Sorry, that's a rhetorical question. Of course not.
Jerry,
Again, you and MVA have shown ZERO proof of any significant fraud or unqualified voters voting.
All you are working to do is make it harder for citizens to vote, pure and simple.
Another thing I learned last night, is that the efforts of people like yourself have been going on for a LONG TIME. :-(
Whoa, back the truck up! Suddenly it is "significant" proof we have to find? Why, when the shoe should be on the other foot? Where is YOUR proof that the many possibilities for improper voting were not used? Can you prove that every absentee ballot contained a valid witness signature? Can you prove that every absentee/mail-in ballot was reviewed by citizen election judges of opposing parties, as required by law? Can you prove that every certified count was backed up by an actual ballot, that every ballot tied back to an actual legal voter, that no added ballots were introduced during the counting, and that no ballots were counted twice? Prove all that, and then you can pontificate about election integrity.
What I and MVA are asking is that the /possibilities/ for "improper voting" be corrected, and the people who appear to have benefited from that improper voting are now trying to hide the fact that it can and maybe DID occur just as they intended.
When ~3.5 million votes are cast and counted in hundreds of locations over a few weeks. Errors will occur... The question is ensuring that they are minimal and not significant.
And when the vote gets close we do recounts to check the work even closer.
Unfortunately, what MVA wants is to make it harder for poor people in cities to vote.
I find it disappointing that Conservatives have become the party that supports voter suppression. :-(
"Unfortunately, what MVA wants is to make it harder for poor people in cities to vote."
That, sir, is a damnable lie and I ask you to stop repeating it.
And following it with another does not make for a valid argument.
Where is your evidence that the "mistakes" were not intentional improper voting, and were not large enough to swing the election? Note that our hyper-partisan Secretary of State still refuses to release the supposedly-public information whereby us serfs could verify that the election was properly conducted. I also note that a recount conducted in secret, following a count conducted in secret, doesn't exactly engender trust in the result.
I will keep repeating it until MVA and yourself start working to make voting safer and easier, while still of high quality.
Unfortunately the MVA cases most seem to have common themes.
How to block urban voters from being informed about the election processes?
How to make it hard for poor / mobile / young / old citizens to vote?
I am still waiting for your proof that votes / tallies were wrong.
Too bad i cannot post the actual document which clearly shows a 350% "overcount" of Biden votes, compared to the manual count of ballots. That's in one small precinct The official vote tallies were wrong. Prove otherwise.
Why can't you post it?
Why can't you take my word for it?
You have a long history of making incorrect statements. :-(
You likely believe them, but they are off the mark.
Not to mention that if MVA had real fraud proof, they would not be suing over technicalities.
Post a Comment