The GTP Unofficial 2020 US Elections Thread

[Keef]

"Media should call GOP election fight an attempted coup, historian says". Autogolpe sounds better.

Absolutely, that's the proper term. In fact that's what usually happens. Off the top of my head, Hitler, Hussein, Maduro, Erdogan. They took the system that put them in office and flushed it down the toilet. Also, soft coup is appropriate here.

 

[Samus]

So, another illegal activity by Trump. Add it to the pile of crimes he gets away with, I'm guessing.

 

[Biggles]

I love this bit that aired on CNN, particularly the example of an airplane hijacking. The hijackers claim to be heroes - we know this, we've heard the cockpit recordings - and yet the media reports the truth, that in fact the hijackers are not heroes, they're hijackers who are attempting to kill innocent civilians.



But Fox News says the hijackers are heroes. OANN says the hijackers are heroes. Dozens, possibly hundreds of government officials across the country including our own president and millions of voters believe that the hijackers are heroes. So many people believe that hijackers are heroes that honestly some of us are questioning what the real reality is. Are they heroes? They...don't seem like heroes. But what if they were? Am I going crazy? Maybe I'm sane and everybody else has gone crazy. How could literally millions of people go crazy at the same time? That seems crazy in and of itself.

But that's what happens during coups. The power of propaganda is immense and can literally topple societies without warning. Effective gaslighting can instill such fear that people begin to effectively hallucinate an alternative reality like cult members on drugs. It's terrifying but it's literally happening in front of our faces.

I'm not crazy, am I? Am I crazy? Or are they crazy? I can barely tell anymore.

Edit: I don't understand how pundits like Rush Limbaugh et al are not implicit in this. Why are they still allowed to speak? I think the weight of their influence over this sedition and their power over the psyche of Americans who believe in it is obvious. Why is nothing being done about it? Most speech is free speech, but seditious speech is absolutely not free. It's very expensive, and the cost, according to US law, is decades of jailtime. So why is our law enforcement not working?

Oh yeah, they all work for a traitor, that's why.

... and now they're receiving the Presidential Medal of Freedom from Trump in recognition of their services:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/devin-nunes-to-receive-presidential-medal-of-freedom

 

[eran0004]

Just read the transcript of the phone call. Trump sounds like some kind of middle school bully.

”Nobody can make a case for that, Brad. Nobody. I mean, look, you'd have to be a child to think anything other than that. Just a child. I mean you have your never Trumper...”

Trump: “But these ballots were 100 percent for Biden. And, do you know about that? A very substantial number came in, all for Biden. Does anybody know about it?”

Mitchell: “I know about it, but —“

Trump: “OK, Cleta, I'm not asking you Cleta, honestly. I'm asking Brad.”

”Because you guys are so wrong. And you treated this. You treated the population of Georgia so badly. You, between you and your governor, who was down at 21, he was down 21 points. And like a schmuck, I endorsed him and he got elected, but I will tell you, he is a disaster.”

”We don't want names. We don't care. But we got that information from you. And Stacey Abrams is laughing about you know she's going around saying these guys are dumber than a rock.”

”The only people like you are people that will never vote for you. You know that Brad, right?”

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/03/...affensperger-phone-call-transcript/index.html

 

[UKMikey]

They're sure this is Trump and not just Stephen Colbert playing a prank or something? Our politicians in the UK were recently caught out by a prankster impressionist trying out his routine.

He's right about being a schmuck though. And that people who like Brad won't vote for him. Fat chance of him joining the Dems so I hope he doesn't cave.

 

[PeterJB]

Is Trump not aware he needs to overturn more than just Georgia to get the required EC votes? Unless he's hoping for some kind of domino effect.

 

[Famine]

Is Trump not aware

I'd say that's a fair assessment.

 

[UKMikey]

To be fair to the tangerine Palpatine, these strong arm tactics appear to have been applied across the nation if this report is accurate. His call to Raffensperger just happens to be caught on tape but it's not necessarily an isolated incident.

Let it not be said that Trump never did any work as U.S. President.

Independent: Trump personally pressured more than 150 Republicans to overthrow election for him, report says

 

[Dotini]

Trump is the oblivious, world-changing privileged white simpleton like those depicted in the farces Being There, Forrest Gump, Idiocracy and Elf. Like Tyrion Lannister, he is a small man who casts a large shadow.

 

[Joey D]

I gather the thrust of the solicitation was the difference between common allegations and sedition/treason as it's defined in Article III of the Constitution.

I think there's a definite grey area, and though I'm not a libertarian or Libertarian (I'm a frustrated moderate Democrat who tends toward liberty and can relate to some "lite" libertarian positions but who has difficulty with some of the more hard-lined views), I do think it's important to err on the side of the Constitution's definition because it definitely relates to First Amendment rights.

I think when it comes to the Sedition Act and the First Amendment, the line is drawn between the regular citizen and a person of power. If you or I engage in seditious language, it doesn't hold much weight and is freedom of speech. If a politician engages in seditious language though, then I'd say that's less freedom of speech since their words are associated with actions. I agree, it's difficult to put a line in the sand and say here you're good but there you're not, but ultimately I guess it would be up for the courts to decide.

I do think the politicians who are doing this should be investigated though and, if need be, charged.

As far as Trump goes, I suppose it would be difficult to prove treason, but I do believe he really is trying to stage a coup. He and his follower are too stupid to actually do it successfully, but still, I think the intent is there. At that point though, it would be hard to say who an enemy of the state is.

 

[Samus]

Is Trump not aware he needs to overturn more than just Georgia to get the required EC votes? Unless he's hoping for some kind of domino effect.

This is just one phone call that was recorded. I don't doubt for a second it's not the only one of its kind he has made.

 

[Famine]

I embed this simply so that I can deliver the punchline...



... that this is unlikely to be the last time Trump pardons himself.

 

[Joey D]

Now this is amusing:



Rep Chip Roy (R-TX) is calling his fellow Republican's bluff by saying that if they don't believe the election of Biden is legitimate, then they can't say their own election was legitimate either.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Now this is amusing:



Rep Chip Roy (R-TX) is calling his fellow Republican's bluff by saying that if they don't believe the election of Biden is legitimate, then they can't say their own election was legitimate either.

Wonder if he saw the same meme that I posted yesterday.

 

[Dotini]

Yes or No.

If there was fraud in the election, and it was for the right reason, then it would be justified.

It might also be justified to get rid of the two party system and go a one-party system. This is a realistic possibility, but if taken, would likely be a one-way trip. If that trip was to the right destination, then it too would be justified.

Yes or No.

 

[TexRex]

Yes or No.

If there was fraud in the election, and it was for the right reason, then it would be justified.

It might also be justified to get rid of the two party system and go a one-party system. This is a realistic possibility, but if taken, would likely be a one-way trip. If that trip was to the right destination, then it too would be justified.

Yes or No.

Deflection and obfuscation.

Yes or No.

 

[Liquid]

Rep Chip Roy (R-TX) is calling his fellow Republican's bluff by saying that if they don't believe the election of Biden is legitimate, then they can't say their own election was legitimate either.

Finally.

 

[Blitz24]

Finally.

Wait a minute.... a Texas Republican making some logical comment? Hell has truly frozen over.

Is Trump not aware he needs to overturn more than just Georgia to get the required EC votes? Unless he's hoping for some kind of domino effect.

While it would be massively amusing if he were to somehow get Georgia to flip and then calls it a day (hooray, you changed a few electoral votes but in the end did nothing of use!), he would likely use GA to springboard attempts in other states. The other possibility is that he has tried this with other states and they didn't bother to reveal that they just said "no" over and over.

 

[Joey D]

It might also be justified to get rid of the two party system and go a one-party system.

Do you want a dictatorship? Because that's how you get a dictatorship.

If anything we need more political parties so that it forces Democrats and Republicans to pick better candidates in order to secure the majority. Or if there isn't a majority, it would require the parties working together to come up with a solution instead of it being just a bunch of idiots doing idiot things because they're idiots.

 

[TexRex]

Perhaps we have another thread on this but @TexRex I don't feel like checking my sources lol.

Why was I tagged here?

All of these are for sure factors, and I do acknowledge them, but...I dunno. I feel like there's still a part of my brain that tries to hold onto a sliver of naivety, because the behavior objectively makes no sense. It's like, even though I know it'll likely never happen, I'm waiting for the GOP as a whole to have an epiphany and realize, "Hey, our leader is A) A Grade-A 🤬, B) literally hates democracy, and C) will throw us under the bus when we're no longer useful to him, and won't think twice on it." Nevermind the fact that they seem to instinctively make excuses for Trump, which has to be so freaking exhausting at this point.

I almost wish I had a bull-horn to scream out to the GOP saying "Stop being bitches, stop allowing corruption to fester, grow a pair and do the right thing (or at least show something resembling individual thought)." I wish I had a similar horn for the "owning the libs" crowd so I could yell at them for being nothing but cringe and supporting people that are effectively attempting a coup, which will bite them in the ass later, if successful.

Again, I'm no fan of the GOP, because they ultimately promote ideals that tend to hurt me and the people I most care about, but I almost want to Bat-slap them to jump off this long-doomed ship.

You're being generous. Stop. The GOP is too far gone and they'll exploit that very generosity just as they exploit anything and everything that keeps them in power, chiefly their delusional base whose confoundment they've cultivated for years.

I think when it comes to the Sedition Act and the First Amendment, the line is drawn between the regular citizen and a person of power. If you or I engage in seditious language, it doesn't hold much weight and is freedom of speech. If a politician engages in seditious language though, then I'd say that's less freedom of speech since their words are associated with actions. I agree, it's difficult to put a line in the sand and say here you're good but there you're not, but ultimately I guess it would be up for the courts to decide.

I do think the politicians who are doing this should be investigated though and, if need be, charged.

As far as Trump goes, I suppose it would be difficult to prove treason, but I do believe he really is trying to stage a coup. He and his follower are too stupid to actually do it successfully, but still, I think the intent is there. At that point though, it would be hard to say who an enemy of the state is.

I think I understand where you're coming from but I respectfully disagree.

I don't believe words rise to the level of sedition, be they from "patriots," parrots, puppets, pundits, pols or presidents.

Acts may rise to the level of sedition, but when these acts are perpetrated by members of Congress but don't meet the standard set in Article III of the Constitution, we need to look to the Fourteenth Amendment rather than criminal prosecution. That efforts to invoke the Fourteenth may be for naught because of partisan divide isn't justification for lowering the standard set in Article III, not least because the right has been playing the treason card far longer and is more prepared to play it against anyone they see as the opposition than anyone is to play it against them.

When acts are perpetrated by the Executive, we need to look to impeachment and removal from office. That these efforts too are unlikely to stick because of partisan divide isn't justification for lowering the standards for reasons including those provided above.

We need high standards. Low standards are likely to do more harm than good.

 

[Keef]

They're sure this is Trump and not just Stephen Colbert playing a prank or something? Our politicians in the UK were recently caught out by a prankster impressionist trying out his routine.

I don't think this is some inconsequential disagreement that can be laughed off with sketch comedy and brown beer.

People are trying to overthrow America, they're trying to start a civil war. I've been constantly asking reasonable people if this is really happening and it's definitely happening. It's to the point where we have to be careful who we trust because there are potentially millions of people out there who aren't just miffed at the election, upset the wrong guy got elected, that'll get over the drama a month or two in, who threaten to move to Canada because they don't like it here no more, but who are actually showing questionable loyalty to the US and seem to want it overthrown.

 

[Keef]

Why was I tagged here?

That was a bad joke about media bias and checking sources lol.

 

[TexRex]

That was a bad joke about media bias and checking sources lol.

Gotcha.

 

[Dotini]

Do you want a dictatorship? Because that's how you get a dictatorship.

If anything we need more political parties so that it forces Democrats and Republicans to pick better candidates in order to secure the majority. Or if there isn't a majority, it would require the parties working together to come up with a solution instead of it being just a bunch of idiots doing idiot things because they're idiots.

Wrong, I think, because more parties create more gridlock, not less.

If we want better candidates, then we need to pay them more and treat them better. Right now they are mostly paid by lobbyists and torn down by critics of all sorts. CEOs, Lt. Generals and top doctors/scientists generally don't have to suffer that sort of abuse.

I don't think everyone would argue that the best possible government isn't the wise and benevolent dictatorship - if it weren't for the fact of succession by the less wise and less benevolent.

Unless you happen to enjoy conflict, interminable delay and inside politics, the current two-party system is bit of a mess. I predict that with any luck the Democrats will win control of the Senate as well as the House and Presidency. Because the causes backed by the Democrats are generally more humane, intelligent and generally correct, I think that justifies creating permanent Democratic Party control of the entire system by admitting two new Democratic states (Puerto Rico and District of Columbia) and adding two dozen solidly liberal justices to the Supreme Court ("packing"). I believe this to be fully constitutional.

 

[Joey D]

If we want better candidates, then we need to pay them more and treat them better. Right now they are mostly paid by lobbyists and torn down by critics of all sorts. CEOs, Lt. Generals and top scientists generally don't have to suffer that sort of abuse.

Candidates are paid just fine and really, they're probably paid too much. You also shouldn't go into politics for the money, you should go into it because you want to make a difference. If we paid people more, we'd just get charismatic idiots who want to make money and can fleece votes out of people.

 

[TexRex]

Wrong, I think, because more parties create more gridlock, not less.

This is a bad take.

Gridlock is preferable to the current condition.

Gridlock benefits the governed because legislation that disproportionately impacts or benefits specific groups is less likely to be passed. Constituents are more likely to be represented equally rather than based on party-defined lines.

You also end up in a situation where the Legislative actually serves as a check against the Executive instead of the present predicament where half of Congress blows their bronzer daddy while ****ing the public and the other half just sits there, flaccid.

Unless you happen to enjoy conflict, interminable delay and inside politics, the current two-party system is bit of a mess. I predict that with any luck the Democrats will win control of the Senate as well as the House and Presidency. Because the causes backed by the Democrats are generally more humane, intelligent and generally correct, I think that justifies creating permanent Democratic Party control of the entire system by admitting two new Democratic states (Puerto Rico and District of Columbia) and adding two dozen solidly liberal justices to the Supreme Court ("packing"). I believe this to be fully constitutional.

Classic Dotinian sensationalism.

 

[Keef]

Wrong, I think, because more parties create more gridlock, not less.

More gridlock is a good thing from a historical perspective. The US is one of very few governments which have managed to survive in this form for very long, most of them quickly falling off one way or the other, and I think the complexities of our system are a huge reason why. It seems like there's always a check and a balance. Actually, there is a situation concerning presidential transition where even more complexity would be desirable, as the "concession speech" issue and other transitional issues seem based more on tradition than on actual checked and balanced statutory procedure.

If we want better candidates, then we need to pay them more and treat them better. Right now they are mostly paid by lobbyists and torn down by critics of all sorts. CEOs, Lt. Generals and top doctors/scientists generally don't have to suffer that sort of abuse.

If we want better candidates we should pay them bare wages and define all misconduct as punishable by death. That will immediately weed out any and all candidates who are doing it for the money or any other benefits and leave only those who are doing it for pure passion and respect of the system. Pay them poorly, scrutinize their every breath, remind them constantly of the thin line they walk between representing America and treason, and may the constant fear of the death penalty motivate them every morning to be as precise, legal, and morally upstanding as humanly possible. And after their term is up - resignation from which would be punishable by death - may they never wish to hold office again.

You also end up in a situation where the Legislative actually serves as a check against the Executive instead of the present predicament where half of Congress blows their bronzer daddy while ****ing the public and the other half just sits there, flaccid.

Never thought I'd get a lesson on American government from Pornhub but here we are.

 

[TexRex]

- resignation from which would be punishable by death -

No bridge too far?

Never thought I'd get a lesson on American government from Pornhub but here we are.

"Oh, the tiiiiimes, they are a-chaaaaanginnn'"

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Wrong, I think, because more parties create more gridlock, not less.

If we want better candidates, then we need to pay them more and treat them better. Right now they are mostly paid by lobbyists and torn down by critics of all sorts. CEOs, Lt. Generals and top doctors/scientists generally don't have to suffer that sort of abuse.

I don't think everyone would argue that the best possible government isn't the wise and benevolent dictatorship - if it weren't for the fact of succession by the less wise and less benevolent.

Unless you happen to enjoy conflict, interminable delay and inside politics, the current two-party system is bit of a mess. I predict that with any luck the Democrats will win control of the Senate as well as the House and Presidency. Because the causes backed by the Democrats are generally more humane, intelligent and generally correct, I think that justifies creating permanent Democratic Party control of the entire system by admitting two new Democratic states (Puerto Rico and District of Columbia) and adding two dozen solidly liberal justices to the Supreme Court ("packing"). I believe this to be fully constitutional.

OK, I'm pretty sure you are a Christopher Nolan character now...just have to figure out which one.

 

[TexRex]

Freaky.

As much as she was the right's darling during 2019 impeachment proceedings, at one point conspiring with the highest ranking Republican member of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA), to defy procedures established for hearings in the House in order to bait rebuke from ranking Democrats and subsequently play the victim, Trump loyalists surely can't be happy with Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY)'s silence regarding the 2020 election but for her own win to retain her seat in Congress. Sure, she was a signatory to the amicus curiae briefs on behalf of Texas, but she hasn't said much publically. That's borderline cuckservative behavior, Elise. Fie and shame! Speak up or be labeled a "RINO" (Republican In Name Only, for those unfamiliar with the term) and risk losing your seat to a "true patriot."

Is it cynical to wonder if she was treated to a telephoned Trump temper tantrum?