Ever since the election the Republican party has gone insane.

Author: MisterChris

Posts

Total: 33
Topic's author
#1
MisterChris
MisterChris's avatar
Debates: 45
Posts: 2,897
5
10
11
MisterChris's avatar
MisterChris
5
10
11

I thought we were anti-riot? What happened to that? This is just embarrassing. 

"tHaT wAs BeFoRe ThEy StOle ThE ElEctIon"

The "evidence" for widespread fraud in the 2020 election is no greater (and I would argue far less) than the "evidence" for widespread fraud in the 2016 election... and after that election, weren't Republicans the ones talking about how the Democrats should accept the results?

"wE sHouLd INveStigAte"

I agree, and we DID. Qualified people looked into it, they saw no good evidence for widespread fraud, and decided that any further investigation is unnecessary. 
Weren't we the ones that were against the "wasteful" Russian hack investigation?






Topic's author
#2
MisterChris
MisterChris's avatar
Debates: 45
Posts: 2,897
5
10
11
MisterChris's avatar
MisterChris
5
10
11

THIS is his response? 

"We had a landslide election stolen from us but yeah don't be violent or anything lul"

You gotta be kidding me. 
We're fucked.
#3
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,035
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@MisterChris
Shut up and trust authority.
#4
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
Shut up and trust authority.
your response means absolutely nothing. I mean, trump is the president. If we shouldn't trust authority, shouldn't all republicans just refuse to trust anything he says? That definitely includes all his insane conspiracy theories. 

#5
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
Republican insurrectionists taking down American flags flying over the US Capitol and putting up the Trump flags, Confederate flags.  Pretty much says it all.  VP Pence (who's secret service agents were obligated to protect the VP during the execution of a  constitutionally mandated act from an attack launched by the President today) should remove Trump from office via 25th amendment provisions on a priority basis.  Or shall we wait for the next previously unthinkable escalation?  God bless and defend America from all enemies, foreign and domestic.  Was there ever a time in US history when any one individual represented such a clear and present danger to our Nation?
Topic's author
#6
MisterChris
MisterChris's avatar
Debates: 45
Posts: 2,897
5
10
11
MisterChris's avatar
MisterChris
5
10
11
Trump (or Instagram) removed the post. 
#7
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@MisterChris
Honestly I feel bad for people who are just republicans, but don't support Trump, imagine all of the people who believe that this is normal GOP, not that I think the GOP is in the right, but I don't think they are anywhere near this. I think this will definitely bias people against republicans for a long time, more specifically on the democratic and liberal front. I know for a fact that fellow progressives are going to use this to try to attack the average republican. 
#8
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Theweakeredge
Honestly I feel bad for people who are just republicans, but don't support Trump
trump's approval rating among republicans is like 90-95%. They've watched him shit on democracy and engage in corruption and graft for years and 90% of them still support him. So while there are a group that are republican but disagree with trump, they are a very small minority. 

#9
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
Well I oop. I guess my benefit of the doubt was misplaced.
#10
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,035
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
If you Trust Authority, then you know those people will disappear after Trump leaves.
#11
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
If you Trust Authority, then you know those people will disappear after Trump leaves.
what does that even mean? which person in authority? which people will "disappear"? why would anyone disappear?
#12
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Theweakeredge
Well I oop. I guess my benefit of the doubt was misplaced.
i would guess that if you asked people in that 90%, lots would say they disagree with things trump does and say. but i have little sympathy for them because they continue to support him even though they watch him commit crimes. 

#13
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
That's fair, to be honest I thought the GOP was split and that Trump was just getting a bigger voter turnout
#14
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Theweakeredge
That's fair, to be honest I thought the GOP was split and that Trump was just getting a bigger voter turnout
my impression, and the polling suggests it, that trump has a strangle hold on the republican party. That is why all the republicans in the senate and congress are terrified of pointing out his conspiracy theories are insane. Because trump is much, much more popular among republican voters than they are. If they criticize him, they will be primaried and lose their jobs. So instead they play along or hide and refuse to comment. 

#15
Death23
Death23's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 618
3
4
7
Death23's avatar
Death23
3
4
7
Trump's a narcissistic psychopath. Everything he caused today flows from his character. I'm not surprised that Trump has resorted to violence to maintain power.
#16
lady3keys
lady3keys's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 210
1
2
6
lady3keys's avatar
lady3keys
1
2
6
-->
@HistoryBuff
Because trump is much, much more popular among republican voters than they are. If they criticize him, they will be primaried and lose their jobs. So instead they play along or hide and refuse to comment. 
THANK YOU!  Yes.  Many Republicans are quite intelligent (even Ted Cruz is not the bumbling idiot he appears to be).  The Republicans in Congress know Trump is not a fit leader.  They know that he is corrupt and they know how much he lies.   Most Republicans are smarter than Trump!  But they are afraid of the voters.  And Trump CONTROLS the bulk of republican voters.

Trump, much like a cult leader, commands the emotional loyalty of millions who have felt angry and invisible for years.  Without a formalized system of logic (definitely not saying they are inherently stupid --  they're not), the Trump followers seem incapable of overriding his direct appeal to their emotional limbic system.  I'm no exception.  I dislike Trump to the point of addiction.  

I mean, I took one look, and knew instantly that he was nothing more than a con-man with an incredibly fragile ego.  Trump supporters see something different I think.

One of the many problems with democrats, is that they SELDOM EVER know how to appeal to people's emotions (the real reason we do everything).  They come across boring, which is probably how it should be.  We should be governed by logic, not our base emotions.  But for the average person, emotion in politics looks like passion, inspiration and very often, the truth.  "It makes me feel good, therefore it must be true."

As for the Republican lawmakers, I believe they would MOST CERTAINLY speak out against Trump, if 73 million people hadn't voted for him.  Most Republicans (office holders) are not so loyal to Trump, as they are loyal to his devoted VOTERS!   I'm not saying this is okay, because IT ISN'T!

In fact, to this I say, COUNTRY OVER PARTY people!  COUNTRY OVER PARTY!
(independent)
#17
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@lady3keys
Most Republicans (office holders) are not so loyal to Trump, as they are loyal to his devoted VOTERS!
this is the only part of your post I disagree with. They aren't loyal to republican voters. They are bottom feeding parasites that are loyal to themselves. They don't back trump because they believe that is what the people want. They back trump because they fear losing their power and wealth. They are doing it out of self interest. 

#18
lady3keys
lady3keys's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 210
1
2
6
lady3keys's avatar
lady3keys
1
2
6
-->
@HistoryBuff
Most Republicans (office holders) are not so loyal to Trump, as they are loyal to his devoted VOTERS!
this is the only part of your post I disagree with. They aren't loyal to republican voters. They are bottom feeding parasites that are loyal to themselves. They don't back trump because they believe that is what the people want. They back trump because they fear losing their power and wealth. They are doing it out of self interest. 
Oh, don't misunderstand.  I agree with you completely.  When I say they are "loyal to his devoted voters", I really mean they are loyal to the ability of those voters to keep themselves in power.  I never for on instant believed they cared about the "well-being" of their constituents.  They have proven repeatedly, that even in a world-wide pandemic, the "People" deserve almost nothing while the corporations (who fund their campaigns) deserve much.
#19
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,700
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
Notice how the logical Republicans are not supporting this. To Dems, please hold to the same standards you said, that "not all the ____ is bad." I'm sure 99% of Republicans condone these actions
#20
lady3keys
lady3keys's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 210
1
2
6
lady3keys's avatar
lady3keys
1
2
6
Joe Biden tweeted:
"Today is a reminder, a painful one, that democracy is fragile.  To preserve it requires people of good will, leaders with the courage to stand up, who are devoted not to pursuit of power and personal interest at any cost, but to the common good."

ELECTORAL VOTE OBJECTION (Arizona)
93 Senators voted AGAINST the objection  - (including Mitch McConnell)
06 Senators voted FOR the objection- (including Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley)

303 Representatives voted AGAINST the objection-(reps. and dems. who care about the common good)
121 Representatives voted FOR the objection- (consumed with desire for power and personal interest)


#21
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@Vader

Apparently 45% of republicans approve
#22
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,035
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@dustryder
They haven't even scrubbed the blood off the walls of the Capitol building, and they are already taking polls about "democracy?"

Sounds about the right tone for 2021.
#23
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,575
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
this is the result of normalizing poltical violence over the last 4 years
#24
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
America will get what is coming to it. One way or another. 
#25
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
There is a distinction between there being no evidence of voter fraud in 2020, and the courts deciding they do not want to hear argument of potential evidence. The alleged evidence of voter fraud in 2016, while not rampant, still did occur and there were convictions of individuals who engaged it. To wit:


Therefore, though minor, there was voter fraud case convictions from 2016, period. This may be no different than in other past years, but that is not the point. That there is voter fraud is a fact. That city and state governments were alleged to have engaged it is a charge worth having its day in court. That the courts refused, from state and district courts to the Supreme Court, is a shame. It may or may not have affected the election results, but particularly when SCOTUS is the first court of jurisdiction, and it was, it ought to have taken a higher view of its obligations than it did. Their objections were petty excuses. They did not want to be seen as an arbiter, even to determine if States violated their own election laws.
#26
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@fauxlaw
That there is voter fraud is a fact. 
true, there are cases going forward of people committing fraud to vote for trump. 

That city and state governments were alleged to have engaged it is a charge worth having its day in court. 
It did. there were dozens of cases brought before the courts. many of those judges were appointed by republicans, some of them by trump himself. Every single judge found that trump had no case. (with the exception of 1 case that had no bearing on anything and wasn't about fraud)

It may or may not have affected the election results, but particularly when SCOTUS is the first court of jurisdiction, and it was, it ought to have taken a higher view of its obligations than it did.
1st, there is no evidence it affected the results. 2nd, Scotus had no right to take the case. (i am assuming you are talking about texas' stupid case). Elections in america are run by the state. If someone has a problem with that election, it needs to go through the courts in that state. Scotus has no right to intervene in that before it works it's way through the lower courts. 

And that doesn't even get into the myriad of problems with Texas' "case". I can link you a video going through them if you want. But basically, the entire thing was stupid, had no evidence, and texas had no standing to bring the case in the 1st place. It was a political stunt with no hope of ever being taken seriously by any court, anywhere. 

Their objections were petty excuses. They did not want to be seen as an arbiter, period.
no, their reason was that texas didn't have standing to bring the case in the 1st place. Which they don't. Texas has no right to bring a case against another state's election. If someone has a problem with an election, it needs to be brought in that state. And it was. That was what the dozens of other cases were about. They all got tossed out because they had no evidence. 
#27
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
Article III, section 2, clause 2 states "In all Cases... in which a State shall be Party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction."  "SHALL HAVE." AS Justices Alito and Thomas dissented in the Texas v Pennsylvania, et al. denial by the Court, "shall have" is a declarative statement of obligation, being the court of original jursidction, and from which, as a result, Plaintiff has no further recourse for relief. It is a mandate which the Court ignored. Standing? There is not elective allowance for making that determination. They are to hear the case, and only then determine results. Your, and thiers, is a cafeteria-style use of the Constitution: choose this, ignore that. Can't do that.
#28
Death23
Death23's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 618
3
4
7
Death23's avatar
Death23
3
4
7
-->
@fauxlaw
Standing? There is not elective allowance for making that determination. They are to hear the case, and only then determine results. Your, and thiers, is a cafeteria-style use of the Constitution: choose this, ignore that. Can't do that.

Two SCOTUS justices took that position, but even if they heard the case, it wouldn't have made a difference:

Statement of Justice Alito, with whom JusticeThomas joins: In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. See Arizonav. California, 589 U. S. ___ (Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.
The point is moot.
#29
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@fauxlaw
> @HistoryBuff
Article III, section 2, clause 2 states "In all Cases... in which a State shall be Party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction."  "SHALL HAVE." AS Justices Alito and Thomas dissented in the Texas v Pennsylvania, et al. denial by the Court, "shall have" is a declarative statement of obligation, being the court of original jursidction, and from which, as a result, Plaintiff has no further recourse for relief. It is a mandate which the Court ignored. Standing? There is not elective allowance for making that determination. They are to hear the case, and only then determine results. Your, and thiers, is a cafeteria-style use of the Constitution: choose this, ignore that. Can't do that.
The Supreme Court did exercise its jurisdiction: it found that Texas has no constitutional interest in another state's sovereign right to vote.  Would Texas be ok if Pennsylvania objected to the way Texas forced counties to use only use one drop box- even if counties had million of voters or was fifty miles wide.  The South just got rid of  post Jim Crow federal oversight arguing the Fed had no right to dictate state electoral process, and now Texas suddenly thinks even states should be able to  object?  Are we really supposed to believe that Texas has lost its religion for states' rights?

No obligation to hear every feckless argument  is explicit or implied in the grant of jurisdiction.  If that was so, the Court would be vulnerable to denial-of-service attacks by overfiling.
#30
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@fauxlaw
"shall have" is a declarative statement of obligation, being the court of original jursidction, and from which, as a result, Plaintiff has no further recourse for relief. 
you have just hit the nail on the head. "plaintiff has no further recourse for relief". That doesn't mean you can go straight to the supreme court. That means that you can appeal to them after going through the other courts. And even if you did go through the other courts, the supreme court doesn't have to hear any case they don't want to. 

Texas had no grounds to sue. Someone in the state the election took place in can sue. You can't have a state run crying to the supreme court because they don't like the results of another state's election. it doesn't work that way. SCOTUS had no choice but to refuse to hear the case. 

Standing? There is not elective allowance for making that determination. They are to hear the case, and only then determine results.
Blatantly not true. If someone wants to bring a lawsuit, they need to have standing. IE you can't sue someone because your neighbor's house got broken into. Your neighbor can sue, you can't. If you tried to sue you would get tossed out because you don't have standing. If you can't prove you have standing, they will not hear your case. That is how the law works. 

Texas cannot sue another state because of the results of their election. They do not have standing to do so. If someone in that state wants to sue over it, they absolutely can. But they need to do it in that state's courts. They cannot go right to the supreme court. And Texas can't sue at all.