American Politics Discussion Thread

[Mjmd]

Have you ever considered that a big personality president that presided over a time period with various scandals (truthful or not) and that also presided over a recession caused by a pandemic might have caused a president to lose an election?

Of course and I said so outright upthread.  It is still more likely than not that Trump did lose legitimately - only PA and GA really seemed to be within a contestable margin, and that wouldn't swing the national outcome.

My point all along has always been that the unknowability is the problem, and justifies the protesting.

1st off there is a Democracy wide difference between protesting and trying to overturn electoral votes. Again, in my view Jan 6th is the smoke not the fire.

If you think its likely Trump lost than why are you trying to justify Republicans attempts to over turn the results. There is a difference in saying "we should change election procedure to (example) have cameras on paper ballots at all times" vs "overturn the election".

[Mjmd]

Also, just to specifically call this out, but you didn't read the bill did you? Its an unfortunately very limited bill and you are giving it way more import than it sadly will have if passed. Now if it started dipping into state powers and methods maybe you would have a loose thread, but sadly very limited bill.

I did not read the bill itself, just the article summary of it.  My whole point is that it *doesn't* dip into state powers and methods, and therefore is useless to prevent any cheating that happened, because at the state or local level is where it did.

Exactly it leaves all the options open that there were to legally challenge before. And it doesn't close loophole of state person certifying just chucking out for no reason. It literally is just ensuring the VP can't do it. Again very limited bill.

[Mjmd]

I mean you realize as I've stated repeatedly that there have been audits, recounts, and investigations right?

And I've stated repeatedly that those don't help when your audit and recount processes are just recounting the same cheating and fraud.  You continue to not understand that difference.

Just to logically sound this out for you. Your trying to say that there was large enough cheating so good across multiple states that defied all our original protections. It then was also good enough to get passed intense review measures often incredible partisan driven that couldn't find anything. The fraud was so good there is no evidence of it that could be provided to state legislatures. 

However, based on a BELIEF there was fraud Republican's were justified trying to overturn the election.

Oh btw the belief there was fraud is required to be a true republican. If you don't hold that the overturn of our democracy was justified you also can't be republican. 

If you want to believe Democrats cheated with no proof because they aren't "your side", sure. It doesn't make logical sense, but its not causing harm. However, you can't overturn elections on that low of a bar and it shouldn't be litmus test if you can be in a party.

[darrelljs]

This started from the question of, how can you support the party that committed Jan 6th.  The answer is that the Jan 6th protest was justified.

The rally, definitely. That's American democracy at its finest. The storming of the capital crossed a line.

Darrell

[T-hawk]

If you want to believe Democrats cheated with no proof because they aren't "your side", sure. It doesn't make logical sense, but its not causing harm. However, you can't overturn elections on that low of a bar and it shouldn't be litmus test if you can be in a party.

I believe Democrats cheated with no proof because it's obvious from human behavior. If they really believed Trump was that horrible, of course they would. I asked that question six times now and you never disagreed.

The only question is whether they got away with enough (and considering the net margin over Republican efforts as well) to swing some result, any of PA or GA or enough other states for the national outcome. This looks unlikely, yes. But the unknowability is on the verge of possibility enough such that protesting is justified.

[Charriu]

If you want to believe Democrats cheated with no proof because they aren't "your side", sure. It doesn't make logical sense, but its not causing harm. However, you can't overturn elections on that low of a bar and it shouldn't be litmus test if you can be in a party.

I believe Democrats cheated with no proof because it's obvious from human behavior.  If they really believed Trump was that horrible, of course they would.  I asked that question six times now and you never disagreed.

That's a dangerous territory you are treating in. If you believe in the rule of law, you always need proof for any wrong-doing. You cannot be led by any feelings, because you you think it's human behavior. With the same argument people were judged as witches houndreds of years ago, because it's obvious from witch behaviour.
I for one do not think that the Democrats cheated in an organized fashion to swing the election even if - or better because - Trump was that horrible. If you want to beat someone, who you think is acting outside the rule of law, then you cannot break that rule of law yourself, which you want to uphold. It doesn't make any sense.

[Mjmd]

If your enemy is doing something than it make it ok for you to do bad things. It isn't logical but happens all the time Charriu.

I also don't believe they cheated enough to effect the outcome. Its such a big project that would require a lot of people and methods involved. Also, with how many Republican eyes have tried really hard to prove they did but can't. Ya. Between the two I don't think they did.

And again, even if we give you the iron man argument (ie give your strongest argument credence) that the Democrats cheated but it can't be proven, that STILL doesn't justify Republicans trying to overturn.

[Charriu]

If your enemy is doing something than it make it ok for you to do bad things. It isn't logical but happens all the time Charriu.

Yes, but you don't defend the rule of law by breaking that rule of law.

[Miguelito]

If Democrats really believed Trump was that horrible, of course they would have fucking killed him. That should be reason enough to believe that they in fact did. It's basic human behaviour. Mar a Lago is occupied by a deep state impostor. I rest my case.

Also, I may or may not really want a Ferrari. It's basic human behaviour, typical for a man of my age. Should they get me in for bankrobbery? Just because no robbed bank has been recorded doesn't mean there ain't one!

[Mjmd]

I mean obviously............ But just because something is a flawed line of thinking doesn't mean people don't think that way and act on that thinking all the time. Saying it doesn't make sense for someone to act in a certain way doesn't mean they won't act in that way is what I'm trying to get at.