- 11,785
- Marin County
The GTP Unofficial 2020 US Elections Thread
- Thread starter Sanji Himura
- 9,512 comments
- 384,860 views
I know this is a stupid question considering who we're talking about, but do these people genuinely think overturning an election is as simple as the current VP saying "Election results? Nah, we'll stick with the current guy".
Do they not realise how dumb that would be? Again, I know, stupid question.
Do they not realise how dumb that would be? Again, I know, stupid question.
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
Not a stupid question at all, but really an important and enduring one.
IMHO, what people think is important. No one seriously thinks the election will be overturned. But suspicion of the integrity of the voting process is rife among Trump supporters. If the voting was falsified, Biden will not be a legitimate President. The global problem is the public's perceived legitimacy of government and ultimately the legitimacy of the state. A lot is going to depend on Biden himself. He might declare a national lockdown or open the southern border. A lot is going to depend on control of the Senate and subsequent actions to admit Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia as states, creating four new Democratic seats. With that margin, they could pack the Supreme Court. At that juncture, Trump voters might well withdraw their obedience to any law or act coming from the federal government.
Last edited:
- 29,700
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
It's in times like these that I sort of wish I was an active participant on Twitter instead of a...I suppose "rubbernecker" is a good description given the platform as I observe it is so often a trainwreck. I'd really love to reach through the internet and slap this guy, but replying would be the next best thing. Still, I really don't feel like surrendering to Jack Dorsey.
Now don't get me wrong, I think ****-eating John Rutherford is an absolute ****ing joke, but the bolt-necked gentleman from Texas is correct; it's not treason and it's not sedition. How those words may be recognized in the lexicon differs greatly from how they're defined in the context (indeed treason is the only crime defined within text) of the United States Constitution.
The Treason Clause of Article III:
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."
I figure the framers were very well aware that accusations of--and prosecution for--treason were commonly utilized as a means to shut down criticism and they thought it important to define the offense explicitly.
As alluded to in that BLT thread, treason is kind of the accusation du jour. It seems to have been popularized by whiny little bitch Trump and his whiny little bitch base, perhaps most notably when directed at Nancy Pelosi because Trump saw her as the opposition...which is literally in the job description of Members of Congress, to act as a check against abuses in the Executive, though some choose instead to simp to their bronzer daddy.
I hate that its popularity has been seized upon by those whose cause broadly aligns with my own, in opposition to those seeking to hold onto power by keeping Trump in office when the People determined he is to be removed.
I also appreciate your foreword.
Now don't get me wrong, I think ****-eating John Rutherford is an absolute ****ing joke, but the bolt-necked gentleman from Texas is correct; it's not treason and it's not sedition. How those words may be recognized in the lexicon differs greatly from how they're defined in the context (indeed treason is the only crime defined within text) of the United States Constitution.
The Treason Clause of Article III:
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."
I figure the framers were very well aware that accusations of--and prosecution for--treason were commonly utilized as a means to shut down criticism and they thought it important to define the offense explicitly.
As alluded to in that BLT thread, treason is kind of the accusation du jour. It seems to have been popularized by whiny little bitch Trump and his whiny little bitch base, perhaps most notably when directed at Nancy Pelosi because Trump saw her as the opposition...which is literally in the job description of Members of Congress, to act as a check against abuses in the Executive, though some choose instead to simp to their bronzer daddy.
I hate that its popularity has been seized upon by those whose cause broadly aligns with my own, in opposition to those seeking to hold onto power by keeping Trump in office when the People determined he is to be removed.
I posted this in the image thread. I'm responding because you may see it there at a later point and choose to withdraw it from this thread, but I'd actually prefer you didn't. It's relevant. It's not mine anyway, so I don't have exclusive rights to share it.
I also appreciate your foreword.
Last edited:
UKMikey
Premium
- 18,029
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
Sorry. I amended the post to quote yours instead.I posted this in the image thread. I'm responding because you may see it there at a later point and choose to withdraw it from this thread, but I'd actually prefer you didn't. It's relevant. It's not mine anyway, so I don't have exclusive rights to share it.
I also appreciate your foreword.
Gohmert is handling the rejection of his suit well. Now he wants his supporters to take to the streets and riot.
The "law and order" party.
Last edited:
- 40,741
As violent as an overwhelmingly peaceful group and another group that barely exists.
Aka
https://mobile.twitter.com/leftaccidental?lang=en
Aka
https://mobile.twitter.com/leftaccidental?lang=en
UKMikey
Premium
- 18,029
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
Yup, violence on top of lies about, and projection onto, their opposition.
Guess it wouldn't be the festive season without another instalment in the Die Hard saga.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump...en-after-stop-the-steal-rally-ends?ref=scroll
Violent insurrection and sedition, man.
Guess it wouldn't be the festive season without another instalment in the Die Hard saga.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump...en-after-stop-the-steal-rally-ends?ref=scroll
Violent insurrection and sedition, man.
Last edited:
- 29,700
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
Found this on the Twitter feed linked to above. Edited only to make it kosher for open posting on GTP.
To say nothing of the fear mongering tactic of quote misattribution (oops, that's saying something), I can't help but notice the bit at the top. I don't know how Facebook works, if that even is Facebook, but it looks like they're calling for Biden to be impeached. Congress hasn't even met to decide whether or not to validate the election and some ****-eating members have publicly vowed to not validate because their bronzer daddy lost, they're still trying anything and everything to overturn the results, and they're already calling for Biden to be impeached.
To say nothing of the fear mongering tactic of quote misattribution (oops, that's saying something), I can't help but notice the bit at the top. I don't know how Facebook works, if that even is Facebook, but it looks like they're calling for Biden to be impeached. Congress hasn't even met to decide whether or not to validate the election and some ****-eating members have publicly vowed to not validate because their bronzer daddy lost, they're still trying anything and everything to overturn the results, and they're already calling for Biden to be impeached.
- 29,700
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
Facts don't matter. Context is of no importance. Trumpism impairs cognitive faculties.
It seems Senator Joni Ernst (R-IA) was calling for impeachment in February, before walking it back because of criticism she received. I'm not quite sure how I missed that at the time. Same goes for Greg Gutfeld calling for it in October, but then I don't take in much Fox News.
- 6,051
- Simcoeace
I can't believe you guys are completely ignoring the BIG story. It's been front & centre on the Fox news website for days now. It concerns Alec Baldwin's wife ... & the latest bombshell is Alec Baldwin's-wife's-former-dance-partner is speaking out!
https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/hilaria-baldwin-former-dance-partner-speaks-out
https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/hilaria-baldwin-former-dance-partner-speaks-out
- 13,848
- Adelaide
- Neomone
I mean, sure? They'd still have to be up for election at some point, and one would have to assume that hard-right Trumpist Republicans are going to be in general less appealing to the overall American public than Republicans that are "moderate" enough to certify a vote that they legitimately lost. That whole democracy thing seems to be quite well thought of.
Or like, if this plan turns out to actually be incredibly popular and the whole thing devolves into the National Capitalist American Worker's Party then the rest of you normies are welcome to come and live in Australia. You'll feel right at home, we have dingbat politicians too but at least they tend to stay in their lane and it's socially acceptable to call them all [insert vulgar Australianism].
- 6,041
- Puget Sound
- Crash852
Lin Wood's Twitter attacks on John Roberts is throwing a tantrum when you don't get what you want from the Supreme Court, and is completely unhinged. At this point, he must have given up completely on any legal case; this can't look good for him or any lawyer associated with him when they are in court.
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
Of course a fraudulent vote shouldn't be certified. But all authorities agree that any fraud in the 2020 election was too minor to affect the outcome. Legal attempts to challenge the outcome, if they themselves are legal, must, will be, and are being dealt with expeditiously in the courts. President-elect Joe Biden will certainly be inaugurated on schedule, IMO.
However, if a significant body of Congressmen and/or Senators continue to publicly dispute the validity of the election, some damage is done. Much more damage is done if a significant number of voters feel the same way. If the legitimacy of the President and Vice-President are brought into question, we will have ongoing problems with the successful functioning of the Administration.
This will likely all fizzle out. But if some actual fraud is eventually substantiated, the legitimacy issue may linger.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
