The GTP Unofficial 2020 US Elections Thread

[McLaren]

And what about the life, liberty, "property", & pursuit of happiness Moss & Freeman are guaranteed when Rudy's defamation threatened all of that?

Moss testified that the ordeal has affected "every single aspect" of her life, forcing her out of her job and leaving her fearful of going out alone. She spoke of receiving a flood of racist messages that included threats to lynch her and her mother.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/giuliani-repeats-false-claims-against-georgia-poll-workers-drawing-judges-ire-2023-12-12/

 

[Blitz24]

We're guaranteed property by the constitution? That's a new one. Do I get to pick out what property I want?

You get that patch of highway there. You now have to clean up litter on it and you cannot keep people off of it. Congrats on your new taxable land!

 

[UKMikey]

Maybe they got it mixed up with the 40 acres and a mule thing in Sherman's wartime order 15.

 

[Liquid]

Maybe they got it mixed up with the 40 acres and a mule thing in Sherman's wartime order 15.

Hehe. "Mule".

 

[TexRex]

Conservatives: "Law and order."

Also conservatives: "NOT LIKE THAT!!!"

 

[Joey D]

Me when a January 6th insurrectionist complains about the consequences of their actions:

 

[Populuxe]

I'm pretty sure that if she was arrested and convicted of participating in the armed insurrection of January 6th, then she does, in fact, have a criminal history.

 

[Populuxe]

 

[TexRex]

Normal people saying normal things.

Exclusive: Roger Stone Spoke With Cop Pal About Assassinating Eric Swalwell and Jerry Nadler

"Either Nadler or Swalwell has to die before the election. They need to get the message. Let’s go find Swalwell and get this over with."

www.mediaite.com

Language warning for the article proper as mild profanity appears uncensored. It's subjected to this site's filter below.

Weeks before the 2020 presidential election, infamous political operative Roger Stone sat across from his associate Sal Greco at a restaurant in Florida.

At the time, Greco was an NYPD cop working security for Stone on the side. Their conversation, at Caffe Europa in Fort Lauderdale, focused on two House Democrats for whom Stone harbors particular animosity, Jerry Nadler and Eric Swalwell.

In audio of the conversation obtained exclusively by Mediaite, Stone made threatening comments about the two lawmakers.

“It’s time to do it,” Stone told Greco. “Let’s go find Swalwell. It’s time to do it. Then we’ll see how brave the rest of them are. It’s time to do it. It’s either Nadler or Swalwell has to die before the election. They need to get the message. Let’s go find Swalwell and get this over with. I’m just not putting up with this **** anymore.”

A source familiar with the discussion told Mediate they believed Stone’s remarks were serious. “It was definitely concerning that he was constantly planning violence with an NYPD officer and other militia groups,” the source said.

Both Nadler and Swalwell serve on the House Judiciary Committee. At the time of the Caffe Europa conversation, Nadler had announced the committee would be investigating then-President Donald Trump’s decision to commute Stone’s sentence after he was convicted of federal crimes in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe.

“A jury found Roger Stone guilty,” Nadler wrote on Twitter in July 2020. “By commuting his sentence, President Trump has infected our judicial system with partisanship and cronyism and attacked the rule of law. House Judiciary will conduct an aggressive investigation into this brazen corruption.”

The source told Mediaite of Stone: “Stone had been at war with Nadler and Swalwell for years. He just hates them.”

“He just wanted to get Trump back into office so these things would stop,” the source added.

Stone was convicted of obstruction, witness tampering, and lying to Congress in the Mueller investigation. Prosecutors sought a nine-year prison sentence for the longtime Republican operative, but Trump’s Justice Department reportedly intervened to impose a less severe sentence. Stone’s sentence was eventually commuted by Trump days before reporting to prison.

The intervention from the Justice Department prompted Aaron Zelinsky, the prosecutor and Mueller deputy who led the case against Stone, to recuse himself from the case in protest. Mediaite reported last week that Stone was caught on tape in December 2020 urging Greco to “punish” Zelinsky.

“He needs to be punished,” Stone told Greco in the audio. “You have to abduct him and punish him. That has to be done. It will be easy to abduct him because he is a weakling.”

Stone denied making those comments, claiming they were generated by AI. He has previously claimed videos of his comments are actually “deep fakes.” In response to a request for comment on the remarks aimed at Swalwell and Nadler, Stone said, “Total nonsense. I’ve never said anything of the kind more AI manipulation. You asked me to respond to audios that you don’t let me hear and you don’t identify a source for. Absurd.”

Greco did not deny the comments, but said in a text to Mediaite: “I don’t think your reader is interested in ancient political fodder.”

Greco, who acted as security for Stone and was with the operative during the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol soon after the 2020 election, was fired by the NYPD over his association with Stone. An NYPD spokesperson confirmed to Mediaite that Greco was terminated in August 2022.

Nadler and Swalwell did not respond to requests for comment.

 

[Keef]

"You asked me to respond to audios that you don’t let me hear and you don’t identify a source for. Absurd.”

I guess the evidence will be presented in court. Or will it? I was actually a juror on a case this year where the prosecutor presented "evidence" and conducted lines of questioning based on transcripts that they never actually shared with the jury. Myself and others on the jury decided amongst ourselves that we had to disregard everything related to that since they refused to provide us the transcripts. It ain't evidence if I can't see it.

I don't know whether or not a defended is personally allowed to see any and all evidence for or against them.

 

[TexRex]

Huh.

Virginia county finds 4,000 misreported 2020 votes, shorting Biden

Election officials in Virginia’s Prince William County have acknowledged roughly 4,000 votes were misreported in former President Trump’s favor during the 2020 presidential election, when Pre…

thehill.com

 

[Keef]

Huh.

Virginia county finds 4,000 misreported 2020 votes, shorting Biden

Election officials in Virginia’s Prince William County have acknowledged roughly 4,000 votes were misreported in former President Trump’s favor during the 2020 presidential election, when Pre…

thehill.com

Interesting. Biden got 62.6% of that county, it wasn't even close, and no concerted effort would've been likely to influence it too heavily. That said, Biden only won the entire states of Arizona and Georgia by 11,000 and 12,000 respectively so if anything like this happened there it could've been a huge deal. Area-wise, Prince William County is at least half rural and half suburban so who knows what local precincts could've been up to.

The FBI academy is just a couple miles south in the next county lol.

Edit: Also this is ridiculous timing for this story to come out. The fact that it happened didn't change any results and didn't even meet the recount threshold which means it has multiple layers of irrelevancy, especially 3.5 years after the fact. I suppose the people in charge thought publishing the story would cause less turmoil than some reporter publishing it in October after a FOIA request but even this little bit seems to me more like trying to plant a seed of distrust more than anything. For example, I haven't even considered election trustworthiness for three years now. I don't care. Nothing happened.

But apparently something did happen and I'm just now finding out about it during the next election year and suddenly it's raising all sorts of questions. I don't personally care but a lot of people will be up in arms.

 

[TexRex]

Interesting. Biden got 62.6% of that county, it wasn't even close, and no concerted effort would've been likely to influence it too heavily. That said, Biden only won the entire states of Arizona and Georgia by 11,000 and 12,000 respectively so if anything like this happened there it could've been a huge deal. Area-wise, Prince William County is at least half rural and half suburban so who knows what local precincts could've been up to.

The FBI academy is just a couple miles south in the next county lol.

Edit: Also this is ridiculous timing for this story to come out. The fact that it happened didn't change any results and didn't even meet the recount threshold which means it has multiple layers of irrelevancy, especially 3.5 years after the fact. I suppose the people in charge thought publishing the story would cause less turmoil than some reporter publishing it in October after a FOIA request but even this little bit seems to me more like trying to plant a seed of distrust more than anything. For example, I haven't even considered election trustworthiness for three years now. I don't care. Nothing happened.

But apparently something did happen and I'm just now finding out about it during the next election year and suddenly it's raising all sorts of questions. I don't personally care but a lot of people will be up in arms.

 

[Touring Mars]

Senate to debate Bernie Sanders’ measure requiring Gaza human rights report as condition for Israel aid – as it happened

The measure is unlikely to win approval, but it’s one of several that progressives proposed to raise concern over Israel’s attacks on Gaza

www.theguardian.com

It staggers the mind that evangelicals are still so eager to support an amoral degenerate like Trump.

 

[Joey D]

Senate to debate Bernie Sanders’ measure requiring Gaza human rights report as condition for Israel aid – as it happened

The measure is unlikely to win approval, but it’s one of several that progressives proposed to raise concern over Israel’s attacks on Gaza

www.theguardian.com

It staggers the mind that evangelicals are still so eager to support an amoral degenerate like Trump.

He's anti-abortion, that's all they care about.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Senate to debate Bernie Sanders’ measure requiring Gaza human rights report as condition for Israel aid – as it happened

The measure is unlikely to win approval, but it’s one of several that progressives proposed to raise concern over Israel’s attacks on Gaza

www.theguardian.com

It staggers the mind that evangelicals are still so eager to support an amoral degenerate like Trump.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Hedonism. Trump is the perfect guy.

 

[UKMikey]

 

[Danoff]

amoral

Immoral.

 

[TexRex]

Immoral.

Either? We observe Trump to be immoral, but the rat bitch itself is concerned only with its own interests and not the morality of its actions serving those interests.

Possibly even unmoral rather than amoral.

 

[Imari]

Immoral.

Definitely both. He does not conform to any sort of normal standard of morality, nor is it apparent that he has any sort of personal morality. I don't think "I am always right" counts as morality as it's not judging what behaviour is moral and what is not, it's just a blank cheque for him personally to behave however he likes.

 

[Danoff]

Either? We observe Trump to be immoral, but the rat bitch itself is concerned only with its own interests and not the morality of its actions serving those interests.

Possibly even unmoral rather than amoral.

Definitely both. He does not conform to any sort of normal standard of morality, nor is it apparent that he has any sort of personal morality. I don't think "I am always right" counts as morality as it's not judging what behaviour is moral and what is not, it's just a blank cheque for him personally to behave however he likes.

Dude is a rapist and incited a riot with the aim of getting congress and the vice president killed. He's stolen, lied, attacked, blackmailed, backstabbed... if immoral doesn't fit the bill, it ceases to be a word. It's hard to even fathom the degree of harm he has caused.

 

[TexRex]

Dude is a rapist and incited a riot with the aim of getting congress and the vice president killed. He's stolen, lied, attacked, blackmailed, backstabbed... if immoral doesn't fit the bill, it ceases to be a word. It's hard to even fathom the degree of harm he has caused.

Yeah I don't dispute that. It can certainly be that the bitch acts with conscious disregard for morality but it can also be the case that the bitch acts aware of but entirely unconcerned by morality, which I understad is amorality. I don't think either are discernable by observing actions.

I also mentioned unmorality, which I understand to be the unawareness of morality, as of an animal or a sociopath, also alluded to by @Imari.

I don't think it has to be a certain one and it can't be any of the others. I think any may apply. Of course this all hinges on my understanding of the different terms, so sub in my definitions [for the terms] for the terms* as needed.

*I swear that's not a typo.

 

[Danoff]

Yeah I don't dispute that. It can certainly be that the bitch acts with conscious disregard for morality but it can also be the case that the bitch acts aware of but entirely unconcerned by morality, which I understad is amorality. I don't think either are discernable by observing actions.

I also mentioned unmorality, which I understand to be the unawareness of morality, as of an animal or a sociopath, also alluded to by @Imari.

I don't think it has to be a certain one and it can't be any of the others. I think any may apply. Of course this all hinges on my understanding of the different terms, so sub in my definitions [for the terms] for the terms* as needed.

*I swear that's not a typo.

If you interpret one's morality based on their conformity to their own personal moral code, then the term immoral describes one who acts against their own internal moral code, which is... if it exists... an odd use of the term and an odd requirement for the term. People might call that morally conflicted or confused, but generally immoral is not used to describe this scenario.

The dictionary describes unmoral as:

1
: having no moral perception or quality
also : not influenced or guided by moral considerations
2
: lying outside the bounds of morals or ethics

This would appear to describe something like a rock. It has no moral quality, and lies outside of the consideration of morals or ethics. If you use the term "amoral" to mean someone who does not consider morality, it fits. I don't use the term this way, and I think it is a confusing way to use the term - the reason being that amoral is also used to describe agency which has no moral quality or consideration. Pouring yourself a glass of water is arguably an amoral act. At a very minimum, it is an amoral act with respect to a particular moral code even if one could imagine a moral code that describes it as immoral.

Calling trump amoral, if one is trying to describe his lack of consideration for morality, at a minimum runs the risk of confusing a rapist with someone pouring a glass of water. Even if it can be technically correct for a particular use of the term, it's not the term I would suggest best suits Trump in the context it was being used. He is "immoral", someone who violates a vast array of moral codes. One moral code would do, but in this example, he's immoral with respect to every moral code that considers rape to be immoral.

I think immoral is the best use here. I honestly wouldn't have expected pushback on that post.

 

[Keef]

If you interpret one's morality based on their conformity to their own personal moral code, then the term immoral describes one who acts against their own internal moral code, which is... if it exists... an odd use of the term and an odd requirement for the term. People might call that morally conflicted or confused, but generally immoral is not used to describe this scenario.

The dictionary describes unmoral as:

1
: having no moral perception or quality
also : not influenced or guided by moral considerations
2
: lying outside the bounds of morals or ethics

This would appear to describe something like a rock. It has no moral quality, and lies outside of the consideration of morals or ethics. If you use the term "amoral" to mean someone who does not consider morality, it fits. I don't use the term this way, and I think it is a confusing way to use the term - the reason being that amoral is also used to describe agency which has no moral quality or consideration. Pouring yourself a glass of water is arguably an amoral act. At a very minimum, it is an amoral act with respect to a particular moral code even if one could imagine a moral code that describes it as immoral.

Calling trump amoral, if one is trying to describe his lack of consideration for morality, at a minimum runs the risk of confusing a rapist with someone pouring a glass of water. Even if it can be technically correct for a particular use of the term, it's not the term I would suggest best suits Trump in the context it was being used. He is "immoral", someone who violates a vast array of moral codes. One moral code would do, but in this example, he's immoral with respect to every moral code that considers rape to be immoral.

I think immoral is the best use here. I honestly wouldn't have expected pushback on that post.

Agreed on the semantics. Even the pathiest of psychos has always had some guiding principles that are arguably logical, even if it breaks common views of right and wrong. They have morals, they're just chopped and screwed morals.

 

[UKMikey]

Trump has proven to be too spiteful and nasty to get a pass. I think amoral would be more like chaotic neutral in his case and he's not that.

 

[Keef]

Trump has proven to be too spiteful and nasty to get a pass. I think amoral would be more like chaotic neutral in his case and he's not that.

You got me curious about this "chaotic neutral" terminology so I took a test. I am lawful neutral.

I would say Trump is even worse than chaotic evil.

 

[TexRex]

If you interpret one's morality based on their conformity to their own personal moral code, then the term immoral describes one who acts against their own internal moral code, which is... if it exists... an odd use of the term and an odd requirement for the term. People might call that morally conflicted or confused, but generally immoral is not used to describe this scenario.

I'd suggest that it's problematic for morality to be so subjective. Of course I recognize that it is so subjective, especially as it's frequently subject to religious doctrine, and that's problematic.

I'd suggest the only rational foundation for morality is natural rights and the respect for or denigration of such. Anything beyond that is subjective and runs the gamut from kindnesses to "things that make me has a sad."

I think it's fine to have a personal code of behavior (even one guided by religiosity) and that such a code is separate from any objective morality. Also such a code should be observed in tandem to objective morality rather than as an alternative to objective morality as the latter is founded upon natural rights.

The dictionary describes unmoral as:

1
: having no moral perception or quality
also : not influenced or guided by moral considerations
2
: lying outside the bounds of morals or ethics

That sounds about right.

This would appear to describe something like a rock. It has no moral quality, and lies outside of the consideration of morals or ethics. I don't use the term this way, and I think it is a confusing way to use the term - the reason being that amoral is also used to describe agency which has no moral quality or consideration.

A rock is an inanimate object lacking any perception. It isn't influenced or guided by anything apart from a physical force acting upon it.

It fits in the strictest sense, but it doesn't fit in the way that it fits any conscious living thing. It would be more appropriately applied to, say, a tiger. Sure, a tiger kills, but the tiger kills only to sustain its own life and perhaps the life of offspring until said offspring is capable of killing to sustain its own life and perhaps the life of offspring, but nothing more.

"Unmoral" when describing conscious entities probably best describes animals acting on instinct, morality being entirely foreign, but I also see it fitting the sociopath for whom morality is also foreign. The unmoral entity is entirely unaware of morality; it doesn't consider morality at all.

I see the "amoral" entity as being one which is aware of the concept of morality but acts without cosideration for it. Maybe this could also be the sociopath. The sociopath is the wrench in the gears here, maybe because I don't have sufficient understanding of sociopathy.

Pouring yourself a glass of water is arguably an amoral act. At a very minimum, it is an amoral act with respect to a particular moral code even if one could imagine a moral code that describes it as immoral.

I'd like to argue that. Pouring oneself a glass of water is a nonmoral act; an act for which there are no rational moral implications.

The notion that pouring a glass of water may be considered immoral highlights the problem with subjective morality. It's obviously an extreme position and so it's extreme in its stupidity, even as it's not likely to be widely held, but it's also stupid to say that homosexual intercourse engaged in wholly absent coercion of any involved party is immoral, and that's more widely held. It's irrational because the act doesn't denigrate natural rights...point of fact it's free exercise* of natural rights. I mean if one wants to be a pansy bitch and be offended by that, so be it. But that doesn't make it immoral.

*Where individuals are free to exercise as such.

Calling trump amoral, if one is trying to describe his lack of consideration for morality, at a minimum runs the risk of confusing a rapist with someone pouring a glass of water. Even if it can be technically correct for a particular use of the term, it's not the term I would suggest best suits Trump in the context it was being used. He is "immoral", someone who violates a vast array of moral codes. One moral code would do, but in this example, he's immoral with respect to every moral code that considers rape to be immoral.

I just want to say that I haven't ignored this part of your post, rather its elements either have been or will be addressed in response to other parts of the post. I don't think you'd perceive my quoting every other part of your post and not this one as ignoring it, but I'm more comfortable making it absolutely clear.

I think immoral is the best use here.

I can tell. I don't think it's wrong, per se. The actions are unequivocally immoral as observed but I'm not as confident that they are immoral and not amoral as perpetrated.

I honestly wouldn't have expected pushback on that post.

I don't think of it as pushback as much as an appeal for more open consideration. Maybe it's pushback against the apparent false binary in your correcting @Touring Mars' use of "amoral."

Trump has proven to be too spiteful and nasty to get a pass. I think amoral would be more like chaotic neutral in his case and he's not that.

It seems like a pass, doesn't it? I hate that it seems like a pass--and especially that I may come off as defending the rat bitch--but at the same time I'm not confident of the absolute.

 

[Danoff]

The flippant response is just to say that if you're not comfortable calling a rapist immoral, something is broken.

My use of the term amoral is one of the definitions of amoral. It's not the one you prefer, and I get that, but it is one, and the fact that these two interpretations exist is a good reason not to use it to describe a rapist. I definitely question the decision to characterize how the person thinks about his own acts rather than just characterizing the acts in this case. Mincing words about whether a rapist considers his own acts immoral just seems like a completely academic point. And I'm happy to discuss that academic point, but I think it's important to keep the focus on the practical. Rape is immoral. Trump is a rapist (among other things). Immoral is a better description of the rapist than amoral.

I'd suggest that it's problematic for morality to be so subjective. Of course I recognize that it is so subjective, especially as it's frequently subject to religious doctrine, and that's problematic.

I'd suggest the only rational foundation for morality is natural rights and the respect for or denigration of such. Anything beyond that is subjective and runs the gamut from kindnesses to "things that make me has a sad."

I think it's fine to have a personal code of behavior (even one guided by religiosity) and that such a code is separate from any objective morality. Also such a code should be observed in tandem to objective morality rather than as an alternative to objective morality as the latter is founded upon natural rights.

Given that rape (and other crimes) are violations of natural rights, I'd think you'd be on board with "immoral" then.

A rock is an inanimate object lacking any perception. It isn't influenced or guided by anything apart from a physical force acting upon it.

It fits in the strictest sense, but it doesn't fit in the way that it fits any conscious living thing.

I interpret unmoral as being useful for describing non-living things.

It would be more appropriately applied to, say, a tiger. Sure, a tiger kills, but the tiger kills only to sustain its own life and perhaps the life of offspring until said offspring is capable of killing to sustain its own life and perhaps the life of offspring, but nothing more.

I would say that fits the description of amoral. At least one definition, and my preferred definition.

The unmoral entity is entirely unaware of morality; it doesn't consider morality at all.

I'd use unmoral to describe an entity which has no role in moral discussion.

I see the "amoral" entity as being one which is aware of the concept of morality but acts without cosideration for it.

That is one definition. I don't think it's a particularly useful definition. But this issue is compounded with the fact that there is another definition which is an act carried out by a moral actor which has no moral qualities.

I'd like to argue that. Pouring oneself a glass of water is a nonmoral act; an act for which there are no rational moral implications.

You want to call this nonmoral. It does seem to fit the definition of nonmoral. But there is much overlap. Let me take an example from an article attempting to tease out the differences here. This is what it says of unmoral:

Unmoral is the first of the gang to be recorded in English writing, in the early 17th century. Having the prefix un-, meaning "not," the word denotes "having no moral perception or quality" (e.g., "the unmoral, critter-killing feline") or "not influenced or guided by moral considerations" ("unmoral, greedy corporations"). Unmoral can also mean "lying outside the bounds of morals or ethics," and in this sense it is synonymous with amoral. All in all, the question of morality is irrelevant to that which is called "unmoral," so the adjective is the right choice when describing nonhuman or inanimate things incapable of understanding right and wrong. But by extension, unmoral is also used for people who seem deprived of human moral perception.

The first part is what you're calling unmoral - a cat killing mice. The second part is what I'm calling unmoral - inanimate objects. The third part is what you're calling amoral - people who seem deprived of human moral perception.

Similarly for amoral

Amoral appears in the late 1800s. The prefix a- means "not" or "without," as in atypical or asymptomatic. The dictionary definition of amoral is "having or showing no concern about whether behavior is morally right or wrong"—compendiously, "without morals." For example, an infant, unlearned in what is right and wrong, is amoral; someone who lacks the mental ability to understand right or wrong due to illness might be described as amoral. These are illustrative examples, however; amoral can be used to describe any person, or his or her actions, who is aware of what is right and wrong but does wrong anyway and responds indifferently about it.
...
Additionally, amoral means "being neither moral nor immoral," or specifically "lying outside the sphere to which moral judgments apply."

The first use is that one you're referring to. The second use (lacks mental ability) is part of what I'd be referring to. And then the last use is also what I'm referring to and even encompasses both of our understanding of unmoral. You can see from the article, the various definitions, and the various usage, that there is a TON of overlap in these terms. And they get used very differently. This is why I do not like attempting to characterize Trump's behavior as amoral. In one specific instance of the term it may be technically accurate. But it is misleading, mostly because we're talking about a rapist who attempted to have a mob murder the country's leadership.

Immoral is clear.

TL;DR - Amoral is fair. It's just also unclear and potentially misleading. Immoral is clear and accurate.

 

[TexRex]

The flippant response is just to say that if you're not comfortable calling a rapist immoral, something is broken.

Yes, that is the flippant response.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Can't we just say bad hombre and be done with it?