"It is a necessary criterion of a functional justice system that parties respect its results. If they do not respect the results of a properly rendered judgment, they are attempting to overthrow the government (maybe you think that is fine, but that is what they are doing)."
Just curious. Did you make these same claims about Hillary's actions in the wake of the 2016 election?
“He knows he’s an illegitimate president,” said Clinton, also three years later. She repeated this sentiment in 2020, telling The Atlantic the election “was not on the level,” and again when she called Trump’s win illegitimate. She piled on to this by saying, “You can run the best campaign, you can even become the nominee, and you can have the election stolen from you,” clearly referring to how she saw her 2016 campaign.
Or how about Jimmy Carter from the same piece:
“He lost the election and he was put into office because the Russians interfered on his behalf,” ex-President Jimmy Carter said in 2019, continuing to deny Trump’s victory three years after the election."
Hillary Clinton says Biden should not concede the election 'under any circumstances'
“Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances, because I think this is going to drag out, and eventually I do believe he will win if we don't give an inch,"
Can you explain exactly why it is acceptable for Democrat politicians to question and refuse to accept the results of elections, but it is unacceptable for Republicans to do so? Please do not go back to "Jan 6th was a coup and much worse...". I am asking you to address your assertion about the parties respecting the results.
> Can you explain exactly why it is acceptable for Democrat politicians to question and refuse to accept the results of elections, but it is unacceptable for Republicans to do so? Please do not go back to "Jan 6th was a coup and much worse...". I am asking you to address your assertion about the parties respecting the results.
I do not care if Donald Trump says "the election was stolen," I care that he tried to physically steal it back. I can say, "Hey, it is an inappropriate outcome that I did not get paid my medical fees for my dog bite injury," but I cannot physically break into my neighbor's house to steal the money back. When I say "respect the results," this is what I mean. That is, in fact, why I included the example of the dog bite, to illustrate this principle in an intuitive fashion. We all understand in our daily lives that it's okay to bitch about the decision of the judiciary, but not to physically fight against them.
So, yes, "Jan 6 was a coup and much worse," in that it was actually meaningfully bad. If Trump had merely said "the election was stolen," I wouldn't care, just as I did not care in 2016 when he said "I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally" (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/802972944532209664).
e: Well, I "care" about everybody saying every election they lose was stolen, in that it is bad for democracy overall to erode trust in it just because you lost. However, I think that this is mostly a self-correcting problem because saying that you lost the election because it was stolen should drive down turnout for your voters next time, since they will expect the election to be stolen again and thus there is no point in voting. Over time, this should tend to select for candidates who don't whine about how every election they lost was stolen.
> What does that even mean? He challenged the slate of electors, just like Democratic congressmen did in the 2016 and 2000 elections. It's a parliamentary process. In what sense is that physical?
It means he attempted a coup d'etat. Maybe you could try reading the article?
It was not a parliamentary process, that's why John Eastman - Trump's lawyer who put together the plan - didn't want it to go to court, because he knew that it would get smacked down. It was nonsense. I put that quote in the article that your brain slid off of because every single wrinkle has been sanded off by your throating of Trump.
> The protestors were standard-issue unruly mob.
Donald Trump sat around drinking a diet coke while his supporters were shot trying to track down and murder Mike Pence. He only told them to stop and go home once it became clear that he was not going to get what he wanted (the election results thrown out). The violence was not incidental, it was intentional, that's why it took him three hours to tell them to stop, even though they INSTANTLY left the MOMENT he told them to stop. If he was not happy that they were being violent, he would have said "stop beating the shit out of cops with fire extinguishers and go home" at the twenty minute mark, not the three hour mark.
> I dare you to explain any way they could have even conceivably altered the results.
I literally explained it in the article, but I will try it once more:
1. Donald Trump sends an angry mob to intimidate Pence into doing what he wants.
2. Pence is intimidated and does what Trump wants.
3. Doing what Trump wants involves unilaterally throwing out the electoral votes from seven states (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin) and the votes of twenty six million American citizens.
4. Because the EVs are thrown out, then either we take who has the new majority (Trump), or we throw it to the House delegations (majority Republican, will presumably vote Trump).
All of this is, again, paper thin illegal - Eastman knows it's nonsense, that's why he didn't want it to go to court.
“It means he attempted a coup d'etat. Maybe you could try reading the article?”
So which is it? Are you claiming that challenging the election results was a “coup d’etat”, or that failing to forcefully enough tell the Jan 6th rioters to stop was a “coup d’etat”? Or something else? Or the combination is a coup d’etat?
If the events of Jan 6th are at all a part of your answer, please explain a) exactly how the coup d’etat was to take place, and b) Trump’s specific role in planning and executing said coup d’etat.
I saw nothing remotely approaching a coup d’etat. Just because leftists claim that it is doesn’t make it so. And surely no court since has concurred with this very biased claim.
So, to be clear, this poster is banned because of other comments. He is replying to a comment explaining the coup, in the comments section of an article explaining the coup, demanding I explain the coup. I'm not writing another explanation of the coup, for the obvious reason contained in the previous sentence. If you are reading this article or comment at a later date, and do not understand a certain part of what the coup plot is, then please go ahead and ask me. As long as you do not demand civility while showing none yourself, I will not ban you.
> As I explained in my other post, this is just inaccurate. Objections to electors must be ratified by a majority of both chambers of Congress.
Did you read the article? Unironically? You keep saying things that have nothing to do with what was said in it. This is from John Eastman himself:
> 1. VP Pence, presiding over the joint session (or Senate Pro Tempore Grassley, if Pence recuses himself), begins to open and count the ballots, starting with Alabama (without conceding that the procedure, specified by the Electoral Count Act, of going through the States alphabetically is required).
> 2. When he gets to Arizona, he announces that he has multiple slates of electors, and so is going to defer decision on that until finishing the other States. This would be the first break with the procedure set out in the Act.
> 3. At the end, he announces that because of the ongoing disputes in the 7 States, there are no electors that can be deemed validly appointed in those States. That means the total number of "electors appointed" – the language of the 12th Amendment – is 454. This reading of the 12th Amendment has also been advanced by Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe. A "majority of the electors appointed" would therefore be 228. There are at this point 232 votes for Trump, 222 votes for Biden. Pence then gavels President Trump as re-elected.
At which point in this list, exactly, does he say that they then get the objection ratified by a majority of Congress?
You don't, because that wasn't the plan. The plan was to ram it down mid by having the VP use his powers as President of the Senate to not even READ IN the electoral votes of seven states. If you agree that it was illegal to do this, then that makes the behavior WORSE, not better. You are saying, "Yes, Trump tried to do a coup, but it was illegal."
Actually, you know what, complaining that I call someone a stupid liar while posting about how leftists are "nonstop into hypocritical hysterics"? Fuck your bullshit faux-civility. Bye.
I correctly call her a liar. If Al Gore had attempted to do in 2001 what Donald Trump attempted to do in 2021, then he would have become President. He was the Vice President, and thus the President of the Senate, and thus could have done what Mike Pence was pressured to do all on his lonesome.
If somebody comes here and posts stupid shit, I'll call them stupid. Why shouldn't I?
No, you did not "know more than I did." You knew irrelevant information. The fact that somebody, at some point, objected to the validity of certain electoral votes is completely different from trying to force Mike Pence to throw them out. The fact that you phrased this post in such a smug, stupid way is what made me ban you.
e: Whoops. Didn't uncheck the delete button. Ah well. Wasn't anything interesting. Just one of the three standard arguments: "Actually, it couldn't have worked, so it wasn't a coup attempt." (The other two are "Actually, he failed, so it's fine" and "Actually, the FBI did it.")
e2: As stated elsewhere, if you do not demand respect while showing none of your own, I will not ban you. I grew up on 4chan, caustic posts don't bother me. However, waking up to some dipshit insulting me, while simultaneously demanding I show "dignity and respect" towards them, is going to get a ban. Hopefully next time I'll remember to uncheck the box that deletes all their posts, though! Very stupid that that box is checked automatically.
"It is a necessary criterion of a functional justice system that parties respect its results. If they do not respect the results of a properly rendered judgment, they are attempting to overthrow the government (maybe you think that is fine, but that is what they are doing)."
Just curious. Did you make these same claims about Hillary's actions in the wake of the 2016 election?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trump-is-an-illegitimate-president/2019/09/26/29195d5a-e099-11e9-b199-f638bf2c340f_story.html
https://news.yahoo.com/hillary-clinton-maintains-2016-election-160716779.html
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trumps-denial-second-big-lie-ask-hillary-clinton-rcna55764
“He knows he’s an illegitimate president,” said Clinton, also three years later. She repeated this sentiment in 2020, telling The Atlantic the election “was not on the level,” and again when she called Trump’s win illegitimate. She piled on to this by saying, “You can run the best campaign, you can even become the nominee, and you can have the election stolen from you,” clearly referring to how she saw her 2016 campaign.
Or how about Jimmy Carter from the same piece:
“He lost the election and he was put into office because the Russians interfered on his behalf,” ex-President Jimmy Carter said in 2019, continuing to deny Trump’s victory three years after the election."
And even worse, there is this from August 2020:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/hillary-clinton-says-biden-should-not-concede-2020-election-under-n1238156
Hillary Clinton says Biden should not concede the election 'under any circumstances'
“Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances, because I think this is going to drag out, and eventually I do believe he will win if we don't give an inch,"
Can you explain exactly why it is acceptable for Democrat politicians to question and refuse to accept the results of elections, but it is unacceptable for Republicans to do so? Please do not go back to "Jan 6th was a coup and much worse...". I am asking you to address your assertion about the parties respecting the results.
> Can you explain exactly why it is acceptable for Democrat politicians to question and refuse to accept the results of elections, but it is unacceptable for Republicans to do so? Please do not go back to "Jan 6th was a coup and much worse...". I am asking you to address your assertion about the parties respecting the results.
I do not care if Donald Trump says "the election was stolen," I care that he tried to physically steal it back. I can say, "Hey, it is an inappropriate outcome that I did not get paid my medical fees for my dog bite injury," but I cannot physically break into my neighbor's house to steal the money back. When I say "respect the results," this is what I mean. That is, in fact, why I included the example of the dog bite, to illustrate this principle in an intuitive fashion. We all understand in our daily lives that it's okay to bitch about the decision of the judiciary, but not to physically fight against them.
So, yes, "Jan 6 was a coup and much worse," in that it was actually meaningfully bad. If Trump had merely said "the election was stolen," I wouldn't care, just as I did not care in 2016 when he said "I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally" (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/802972944532209664).
e: Well, I "care" about everybody saying every election they lose was stolen, in that it is bad for democracy overall to erode trust in it just because you lost. However, I think that this is mostly a self-correcting problem because saying that you lost the election because it was stolen should drive down turnout for your voters next time, since they will expect the election to be stolen again and thus there is no point in voting. Over time, this should tend to select for candidates who don't whine about how every election they lost was stolen.
> What does that even mean? He challenged the slate of electors, just like Democratic congressmen did in the 2016 and 2000 elections. It's a parliamentary process. In what sense is that physical?
It means he attempted a coup d'etat. Maybe you could try reading the article?
It was not a parliamentary process, that's why John Eastman - Trump's lawyer who put together the plan - didn't want it to go to court, because he knew that it would get smacked down. It was nonsense. I put that quote in the article that your brain slid off of because every single wrinkle has been sanded off by your throating of Trump.
> The protestors were standard-issue unruly mob.
Donald Trump sat around drinking a diet coke while his supporters were shot trying to track down and murder Mike Pence. He only told them to stop and go home once it became clear that he was not going to get what he wanted (the election results thrown out). The violence was not incidental, it was intentional, that's why it took him three hours to tell them to stop, even though they INSTANTLY left the MOMENT he told them to stop. If he was not happy that they were being violent, he would have said "stop beating the shit out of cops with fire extinguishers and go home" at the twenty minute mark, not the three hour mark.
> I dare you to explain any way they could have even conceivably altered the results.
I literally explained it in the article, but I will try it once more:
1. Donald Trump sends an angry mob to intimidate Pence into doing what he wants.
2. Pence is intimidated and does what Trump wants.
3. Doing what Trump wants involves unilaterally throwing out the electoral votes from seven states (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin) and the votes of twenty six million American citizens.
4. Because the EVs are thrown out, then either we take who has the new majority (Trump), or we throw it to the House delegations (majority Republican, will presumably vote Trump).
All of this is, again, paper thin illegal - Eastman knows it's nonsense, that's why he didn't want it to go to court.
“It means he attempted a coup d'etat. Maybe you could try reading the article?”
So which is it? Are you claiming that challenging the election results was a “coup d’etat”, or that failing to forcefully enough tell the Jan 6th rioters to stop was a “coup d’etat”? Or something else? Or the combination is a coup d’etat?
If the events of Jan 6th are at all a part of your answer, please explain a) exactly how the coup d’etat was to take place, and b) Trump’s specific role in planning and executing said coup d’etat.
I saw nothing remotely approaching a coup d’etat. Just because leftists claim that it is doesn’t make it so. And surely no court since has concurred with this very biased claim.
So, to be clear, this poster is banned because of other comments. He is replying to a comment explaining the coup, in the comments section of an article explaining the coup, demanding I explain the coup. I'm not writing another explanation of the coup, for the obvious reason contained in the previous sentence. If you are reading this article or comment at a later date, and do not understand a certain part of what the coup plot is, then please go ahead and ask me. As long as you do not demand civility while showing none yourself, I will not ban you.
> As I explained in my other post, this is just inaccurate. Objections to electors must be ratified by a majority of both chambers of Congress.
Did you read the article? Unironically? You keep saying things that have nothing to do with what was said in it. This is from John Eastman himself:
> 1. VP Pence, presiding over the joint session (or Senate Pro Tempore Grassley, if Pence recuses himself), begins to open and count the ballots, starting with Alabama (without conceding that the procedure, specified by the Electoral Count Act, of going through the States alphabetically is required).
> 2. When he gets to Arizona, he announces that he has multiple slates of electors, and so is going to defer decision on that until finishing the other States. This would be the first break with the procedure set out in the Act.
> 3. At the end, he announces that because of the ongoing disputes in the 7 States, there are no electors that can be deemed validly appointed in those States. That means the total number of "electors appointed" – the language of the 12th Amendment – is 454. This reading of the 12th Amendment has also been advanced by Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe. A "majority of the electors appointed" would therefore be 228. There are at this point 232 votes for Trump, 222 votes for Biden. Pence then gavels President Trump as re-elected.
At which point in this list, exactly, does he say that they then get the objection ratified by a majority of Congress?
You don't, because that wasn't the plan. The plan was to ram it down mid by having the VP use his powers as President of the Senate to not even READ IN the electoral votes of seven states. If you agree that it was illegal to do this, then that makes the behavior WORSE, not better. You are saying, "Yes, Trump tried to do a coup, but it was illegal."
Actually, you know what, complaining that I call someone a stupid liar while posting about how leftists are "nonstop into hypocritical hysterics"? Fuck your bullshit faux-civility. Bye.
> This is complete nonsense. Trump challenged the slate of electors. He's entitled to do that. The Democrats did it in 2017 and 2001.
No, they didn't. Consider yourself extremely lucky I do not ban you for being a stupid liar.
Wow. It’s your Substack, so you can ban who you want.
You falsely call Wanda a liar, which is your right, too, even though imo she hasn’t lied once.
But calling her “stupid”. Excellent way to win friends and influence people!
But clearly you are following in the currrent leftist mold: when you can’t win the argument by reason, go for censorship…
I correctly call her a liar. If Al Gore had attempted to do in 2001 what Donald Trump attempted to do in 2021, then he would have become President. He was the Vice President, and thus the President of the Senate, and thus could have done what Mike Pence was pressured to do all on his lonesome.
If somebody comes here and posts stupid shit, I'll call them stupid. Why shouldn't I?
No, you did not "know more than I did." You knew irrelevant information. The fact that somebody, at some point, objected to the validity of certain electoral votes is completely different from trying to force Mike Pence to throw them out. The fact that you phrased this post in such a smug, stupid way is what made me ban you.
e: Whoops. Didn't uncheck the delete button. Ah well. Wasn't anything interesting. Just one of the three standard arguments: "Actually, it couldn't have worked, so it wasn't a coup attempt." (The other two are "Actually, he failed, so it's fine" and "Actually, the FBI did it.")
e2: As stated elsewhere, if you do not demand respect while showing none of your own, I will not ban you. I grew up on 4chan, caustic posts don't bother me. However, waking up to some dipshit insulting me, while simultaneously demanding I show "dignity and respect" towards them, is going to get a ban. Hopefully next time I'll remember to uncheck the box that deletes all their posts, though! Very stupid that that box is checked automatically.