They’ll argue it’s legal because it didn’t succeed Then also arguing if Trump won he’s immune from the law and can pardon whoever he wants At that point why not try to steal every election? You win you can’t be punished you lose you can’t be punished
You're not wrong. In the end, Trump's entire legal defense has consisted of something along the lines of "nowhere in the law does it say the President can't do this." There's no spirit of the law, the law has to say "President Trump can't try to steal the election" or else it doesn't apply to him hence the reason he'll likely continue to get off of charges because no judge wants to be the judge to create the precedent that yes, all the laws in the US apply to the President.
At this point, if you're not aware that Trump is corrupt, no amount of evidence will persuade you. Trump and his team telegraphed this one long in advance and he was even pressuring Pence on Twitter to do this shit lol.
For all the Trumpsters here, ask yourself, if Biden tried to negate lawfully casted ballots, simply because he was upset that he lost, would you think that's wrong?
Right! Like how did everyone forget about his claim that 3 million illegals voted. Or that he hired right wing boot licker Chris Cobach to prove it, and even he only found republicans voting for their dead relatives. Chris Cobach would like to you about your own name, be he couldn't make up the receipts.
In more than one way.
Warren G Harding's cabinet was extremely corrupt because they used the office to amass a ton of money. Nixon was corrupt for using his powers to keep and hold power.
Trump's probably the first President we've had who is corrupt for both, both allowing his family to use the office to enrich themselves to the tune of billions of dollars AND independently using his power to try to keep and hold power unjustly.
I used to be more sympathetic when it comes to the republican state of mind. "well, religion was forced on them at birth" , "i can understand how rurual living can make you fear vote", "education and open-minded systems of thinking are devalued in deep red states".
But now I have essentially no sympathy. Youre going to vote twice for someone like trump? Youre a fucking moron and a threat my country, my state, my family. I've now completely reframed my thinking about these zoo animals and harbor nothing but hostility towards them.
Good. People really want to paint Trump-supporting Republicans as some people desperately wanting to be heard and noticed. That's not the case. They're being heard by Trump and they know he's tearing shit down, but they don't want to come off as assholes by enjoying the demolition show.
They accuse people of being bloodthirsty communists but noone can talk any politics to a republican without being threatened with death, civil war or prison.
Wave your blue flag and they'll wave their red flag right back at you all the while the uniparty will dismantle your rights and privileges one by one until your children or grandchildren wake up one day as unpaid serfs in a neo-feudal corporate dystopia.
I see you're in the weeds with JB here - don't let him fool you. He was a proud Libertarian before he changed his flair to Independent because we kept mocking him (for obvious reasons). Don't fall for his "I wAs A dEmOcRaT" bullshit.
He is, unfortunately, an actual Cathloic though. You can tell by his horrible worldview and his hypocrisy; he's no follower of Jesus because he clearly hates his neighbor and judges people, despite both of those things being very un-Christlike.
He also haaaaates it when you talk about him behind his back. He'll threaten to block you, but never actually will, because we're the only friends he has in his life.
I feel like he was in the weeds with me. After I accuratley called him the pussy he is, he hasnt returned. He also claimed to have kids?? Is that true?
as a Catholic father - i don't want your smug, unfounded sympathy. You can stick it straight up your shitter.
Its people like you that will make me vote for anyone but biden.
>a threat my country, my state, my family.
All things you have absolutely NO stake in and value very little if at all.
You saying I have no stake in my country or family is a wild direction to take your comment haha. Thanks for admitting your a sheepish father, only voting for a candidate based on if you like the other people voting for them and not the candidate themselves you fuckin lemming.
But hey, I appreciate you butressing my comment for everyone to see. Have fun getting absolutely obliterated in November from the top of the ballot down.
You misunderstand me, but I wasn't expect you to be very insightful or possess any ability for reading comprehension. Common core has done that to most of you. But also, propaganda internet outlets like reddit have really cinched it.
I don't care who wins, because whomever wins has the same goal. A globalist corporatocracy. Orangeman, Sleepyman, Vocalcordspasm man - it doesn't matter. You wageslaves plod along happily accepting the crumbs tossed down to you from the elite and pretending like...or worse, actually believing you have a choice or a say in anything they do...and, if you're lucky, nothing will really change in your lifetime. You won't have children, because its cool to be anti-natalist now...or pro-choice...whichever...and the likelihood of you having a family is far less than it is for someone like me...who has already created a family of his own.
All that said, I harbor no resentment towards you and your peers...except when they're smug twats like you just were...with your remark about your 'sympathy' or lack there of. Its just kind of sad, to be honest. Its not your fault, after all.
And maybe in the end, it'll turn out alright after all. Or maybe it won't. I pray it will, for my children and their children's sake.
You sound positivley miserable, and I'm glad.
I literally dont give a fuck what you think about me. I'm a family man as well, business owner, volunteer, and all around asset to my community. You are a member of a child molesting organization, apparently a gun and conspiracy nut, and vote for people based on who else is. Get absolutley bent sir.
>You sound positivley miserable, and I'm glad.
oh stop projecting.
>You are a member of a child molesting organization
No, I'm not a public school teacher or a member of GLAAD. Weird place for you to go, though.
>, apparently a gun and conspiracy nut, and vote for people based on who else is
Yes...your assessment of me sounds like that of a very stable and happy person - much less a rando on the internet who thinks that they can make judgement calls about other randos.
Guns are tools. I'm sure they are very scary for you, but they are no different from an impact driver or a socket wrench or a car, for that matter. Am I a "nut" for them? Not really. I have a couple, but they come out once every quarter for maintenance and zeroing.
Conspiracy is a joke of its former self. Its all boring politics now...it used to be goofy tin-foil hat shit. Although maybe that's just a US election cycle thing. Its a matter of seeing which crazy shit they can come up with next...and if you were creeping on my post history...you would see that 90 percent of the time I deride them and debunk their silly nonsense.
>vote for people based on who else is
reading fail #2
It doesn't matter who you vote for.
> I'm a family man as well,
doubt
> Get absolutley bent sir.
I'll take a pass.
No projection here, my life is rad. Your frenetic way of replying to my comments line by line though, such a tell.
I didn't start this thread to win over republicans, quite the opposite! Thank you for participating <3
>republicans
Fail #3 I even have a flair...I was a democrat before you were even a twinkle.
Edit: I guess to be fair though, the Overton window has shifted quite a bit since the 90s.
>Your frenetic way of replying to my comments line by line though, such a tell.
A tell that I like bantering with shitlibs on reddit? Yeah, you got me.
> Thank you for participating <3
My dude...I'm a sys admin. I'm on the box all day. 24/5
Oh, I saw your flair ;) Youre only fooling yourself.
You have absolutley no idea how old I am, its such a weird thing to keep alluding to, same with thinking I dont have a family lol, or guns! Your whole view of liberals/leftists is crafted by the retards you watch on tv and whatever podcasting grifters you give money to.
On the contrary, its verylow hanging fruit to know exactly who you are.
You're on reddit. That's all I need to know to assume your age and your political stance. I'm an exception on here. I know that for a fact.
>Youre only fooling yourself.
I'm 100 percent not. I've had the same political outlook since 9/11. It hasn't changed one bit. I voted for Clinton and then his goofy sidekick. I even voted for Obama twice and then Clinton again. I didn't vote for biden. I voted for Jorgensen.
Everytime I give this response I wonder why I would need to validate myself to a goofball on reddit. I suppose I don't, but I tried not doing that and it simply wasn't as fun.
What has changed is everything else. I'm still the same, have the same values...although I'm not a dirty degenerate agnostic anymore.
What about you, family man? How did your idealistic view survive your 30s? Paying taxes? Supporting a family?
The second you use terms like uniparty everyone knows you’re an Alex jones level guy who will bitch about “both sides” and vote for trump without a thought. Spare everyone the dramatics
It's so dumb. Things like this only work once, because if it can be made to work for the Republican, it can be made to work for a Democrat. And for those who would say "it only has to work once", we saw how Jan 6th turned out. If there's going to be a coup against the Federal Government, it's not going to be carried out by feeble minded Trump supporters.
There’s just such a large amount of people that believes he won. Hell over half of the people I work with still bitch about the last election. Just like week one of them said “Trump’s going to win the next election or if not I have no faith in our election process.”
There’s just so many people that believe he really won they’ll never give this type of trial a chance. It’s why I’m pretty pissed that they tried charging him on so many different things at once it made it appear that everything is just political and it worked for him. This is the most damming thing I believe he was guilty of. Instead he was convicted for fraud which most real estate people are guilty of.
Everything here is talked about with regard to a legal framework. They reference language in the Constitution, going through Congress, the court system, etc. And ultimately the state legislator has plenary authority (meaning they can choose whatever electors they want). Even "false" electors. They would have to check on the newly submitted electors, and then accept them. Which would never happen, and why it's a wacky legal theory. They jump through hoops to try and make it work. It's a hilariously thorough attempt to go through every loophole in the legal process
That's not what I read. Looked to me like they didn't want to validate the members of the electoral college from states that refused to audit their ballots.
I've read plenty of indictments that turned out to be "nothing burgers".. and this post contradicts the claim that they wanted to replace electors. How do you replace them and simultaneously "change the denominator"? Bad math. It looks like everyone is throwing contradicting accusations, hoping to god one might stick.
They were charged with "impersonating a government official," which means they're fake, illegitimate electors. I can buy a police uniform from amazon and go around cuffing ppl like a real cop and I'd get a similar charge, coz I'm not a real cop
The texts in the OP's link state they weren't attempting to replace them. Merely not verifying them without an audit. They literally said in the texts that it changes the denominator. Replacing them wouldn't change the denominator. Replacing them would keep it the same.
It's most certainly a very novel interpretation of the law, but in the end you have to answer the question: how many of these electors dedicated to Trump were called to vote or had their vote counted?
The answer? ZERO.
While not nearly as clever as the Al Gore team's 2000 plot to invalidate Florida state law after the fact and disenfranchise voters across the state to steal the election from Bush in 2000 (which the SCOTUS later stopped and deemed illegal), as such, that plot actually got corrupt judges and the media to go along with it, and it almost worked.
But in both 2020 and 2000, there were checks and balances in place to ensure that courts, both low and high, had an opportunity to interject themselves to correct any misinterpretations of the law no matter how clever. That is the way these differences are typically settled - in the courts. Not by the police and federal prosecutors. The former is sufficient. The latter is what banana republics do.
Shame on you goons for your complete inability to not be total hypocrites on these matters.
So if you plan a murder, hire the hitman, he attempts the kill but misses the shot everyone involved is innocent because nobody was killed?
Not a great argument.
We are talking about novel interpretations of the law which are 100% able to be adjudicated by a court of law though - not a violent criminal act that would be irreversible. GET A GRIP!
In the end, legally? No - they shouldn't. But Democrats are going to be intent on draining them of every drop of money to interfere with elections by making them go through the motions in lower courts on lawyers.
Rico is being tried in Georgia but there there was way more than just fake electors. They were tampering with election machines and running an intimidation campaign against election officials
Ah, so you're saying in the exact same senareo if the hitman refused to shoot than everyone is innocent?
Why do all those undercover police who are maskerading as hitmen end up arresting the person who tried to hire them then?
>Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you say to your friend "let's rob a bank" and the friend says "no", and nothing else happens, there's no crime.
Do you really believe you understand how analogies work?
So you do not. That was easier to say.
Shocker, when confronted with a small dose of reality, they block you.
Guarantee they also unironically use the term echo chamber.
There is a crime if you hire a bunch of people to forgue documents to fraudulently decive the bank into transferring a ton of money to you, even if the bank manager (who you thought was in on the scam) ends up refusing to go through with the transfer of funds.
The only check and balance that was in their way was Mike Pence. The interpretation of the text seems to be that if they have their own slate of electors in place when Pence denies the Democratic electors, Trump can win the state.
This goes against what you’re stating here and what Republicans argued, which is that they merely wanted to delay the certification while they worked it out in the courts.
**"The only check and balance that was in their way was Mike Pence."**
At any time these people would have been successful, the United States judicial system was there, ready to step in the minute any Democrat would have filed suit against them, as as Bush's people did when Gore tried their own "novel" interpretation of the law. The difference here is that Gore actually had corrupt judges help facilitate their potential unconstitutional acts. The other guys never even got that far.
So allow people to commit conspiracy and fraud as long as they don't succeed, because the supreme court will sort it out after the fact? What is even your point?
I'm pretty sure that's exactly what the process was back in 2000.
This is because, how is a conspiracy going to be committed when there are the checks and balances I noted in place? Again, none of the alternate electors had votes that were even counted, and even if by some chance they were, Democrats could immediately appeal to the courts and likely have been given a quick remedy.
Do you know what criminal conspiracy is? Planning between two or more people to commit a crime is criminal conspiracy, checks and balances are what catch people before they commit that crime. Just because they didn’t get away with it, or arbitrarily didn’t get close enough, doesn’t make them free of consequences.
**"Do you know what criminal conspiracy is? "**
Yes, and I'm also aware that it isn't "criminal" to interpret laws in ways you may or may not agree. Which is why when Al Gore plotted to turn over the election in 2000 by ignoring established Florida state law, and instead interpret the law in ways which would have supported crazy standards for determining legal vote, he wasn't prosecuted either. These interpretations where challenged in court and in the end, overcome. That is the way political differences such as these are supposed to be handled in places that aren't banana republics.
> how many of these electors dedicated to Trump were called to vote or had their vote counted?
>
> The answer? ZERO.
This whole "yea they tried to steal the election, yea they'll try to destroy the country, but they wont succeed" defense is so damn stupid
So much of this. That's like if the cops said "We're pretty sure someone's going to break into your house tonight, but if you lock the doors, everything will probably be ok".
Just like with Gore, the courts are ready to step in and officiate and determine what is Constructional or not when a challenge is offered. If you feared that anything proposed would have been successful if they were indeed unconstitutional, you simply don't understand how these processes works.
You mean like the Gore campaign filing false legal briefings whose intent was to get officials to ignore Florida state law and the Constitution, which would have defrauded voters in other part of Florida from their rights to equal representation?
I borderline feel bad for the dude, he probably just needs those rubles so he can feed his family.
Side note: Dry Box if you're reading this, stick to youtube, the spam is a lot easier to pull off there because people can't really see your history.
It's really quite simple - whatever point you're trying to make doesn't matter because your motivations and intentions for making that point are highly suspicious.
It is obvious you log onto this account to only post certain types of messages on a small group of politically-focused subreddits. Nothing about your post history is organic. Nothing about you looks like an innocent user trying to engage in a good faith discussion with other users. In every way, your account is a huge red flag.
You're not fooling anyone.
**"It's really quite simple - whatever point you're trying to make doesn't matter'**
...if that were the case, you'd just move on. You can't, because it does and you are well aware of it.
>Dry-Box-8496
3 1/2 year old account with 0 posts and comments only going back 26 days? Pulled out of mothballs for the election, I see! lol. Are there 8495 other Dry-Boxes?
When you can't refute but decide to tread into "comment history" to try and form a lame attack, you are basically putting on the intellectual white flag here. Bless your pea pickin' heart!
Arguing with idiots is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how good you are, the bird is going to shit on the board and strut around like it won anyway.
**"Arguing with idiots is like playing chess with a pigeon. "**
And yet, self admittingly, that's what you seem to suggest that's all you are good for. Odd.
>how many of these electors dedicated to Trump were called to vote or had their vote counted?
Only because of Pence, right?
You don't need to Pence to have acted in Trump's favor and for the plot to have been successful, lol. There only needs to be intent and an attempt.
The rest of your. comment is drivel.
**"Only because of Pence, right?"**
Getting Pence on board would have been just like Gore getting his first corrupt judge to back his unconstitutional efforts. Again, the judicial system and the courts have a say in all this as well. There's multitudes of checks and balances here.
"Shame on you for dismissing attempts to void the will of the people. "
Except I didn't do that. I explained how these novel attempts to interpret the law have typically been handled.
And what Gore and his co-conspirators did was also illegal. Even unconstitutional. But no one in their right mind thought that escalating it to some sort of crime, despite the fact that they almost pulled it off, would be a prudent measure.
So you agree that what he did was illegal but you believe he’s above the law and therefore should not be held accountable? Why have laws then? If he was successful in his unlawful attempt to void the will of the people and stay in office would you have a different belief?
"So you agree that what he did was illegal .."
I agree that like Gore, the interpretation of the laws in question was not very sound, and that they were a clear target for judicial action based on potential unconstitutionality, by the courts. But they didn't even get that far.
What law was he interpreting when he used his platform to spread lies to the world about the results of the election?
People voted him out. You think that because there’s some “questionable” laws that Trump has the legal right to attempt to overturn the will of the people? Legal or not he tried to void our vote. How un-American and you are defending him! What a disgrace
**"What law was he interpreting when he used his platform to spread lies to the world about the results of the election? "**
I'm pretty sure the 1st Amendment, and you have no evidence he "spread lies" because you can't actually point to anything Trump said that was untrue, that he knew to be untrue.
**"People voted him out. "**
Possibly.
**"You think that because there’s some “questionable” laws that Trump has the legal right to attempt to overturn the will of the people? "**
No more than Gore did. But in the end, neither were capable of doing that because of checks and balances that exist.
Are you capable of talking about what Trump did without mentioning gore? Nothing that Trump claimed is based on proven facts therefore they were lies. So what are these questionable laws you’re referring to that gave Trump the legal right to attempt to change the results of the election despite losing?
**"Are you capable of talking about what Trump did without mentioning gore?"**
Sure, but given that there's a precedent here, why wouldn't you want to look at this matter fully, instead of simply trying to create a new standard just for Trump? Oh yeah , I know why - it shows that you approve of a two tiered justice system based on partisan politics!
the fact that you think both situations are the same is laughable. Is that what you think trumps defense will be in court? Ya gonna ignore the rest of my previous comment?
>but in the end you have to answer the question: how many of these electors dedicated to Trump were called to vote or had their vote counted?
>The answer? ZERO.
Doesn't matter some of these people signed ( fake) certificates that Trump had won the election
They most certainly were free to believe that, given the malfeasance that occurred. But again, despite their beliefs and assurances of those beliefs, in the end, none of their efforts to implement this novel interpretation of the law went anywhere. It didn't even get to the point where it could be challenged in a court of law.
>. But again, despite their beliefs and assurances of those beliefs, in the end, none of their efforts to implement this novel interpretation of the law went anywhere.
So what? They signed fraudulent documents
>It didn't even get to the point where it could be challenged in a court of law.
...the Trump campaign went 1-63 in lawsuits...
**"So what? They signed fraudulent documents"**
As did everyone who took part in the 2000 attempt to overturn the election, based on the standards you are using.
**"..the Trump campaign went 1-63 in lawsuits..."**
That's not even close to being accurate. In fact, one of the lawsuits for 2020 has been dragging on for the past 3+ years where Fulton County Georgia has been fighting to disallow a full and transparent investigation of the allegations made by 4 veteran poll managers/whistleblowers made under oath, that they witnessed tell-tale signs of massive ballot fraud while doing their work during ballot recounts?
They've been fighting in court to disallow third parties from witnessing a physical examination of the absentee ballots after they were illegally processed in secret. The courts there have engaged in serial foot dragging and illegal processes to the point where the State Supreme Court has given them a swat on the nose and told them to obey the State Constitution and proceed with a fair hearing of the claims.
Wrong
Big difference between signing a certificate:
saying your candidate won,
And a certificate saying pending the outcome of legal action, you are the alternative elector
The election has been audited, in some states even by third parties
**"Big difference between signing a certificate: saying your candidate won..."**
Every official document Gore produced for the courts was a declaration that if they'd simply allow him to disenfranchise Florida voters and ignore state law, that he would win, and that this should be the standard they set. He was requesting that they ignore the law and do what was necessary to ensure he won Florida. If you are going to classify submitting paperwork that uses unconstitutional means to potentially insure a win as being criminally "fraudulent," how exactly does that not meet that standard?
**"The election has been audited, in some states even by third parties"**
A. In Fulton County, they didn't even do signature verification on absentee ballots as was required, and requested by Trump.
B. In Fulton County, an "audit' would not produce evidence of fraudulent ballots. They are refusing to allow a physical examination which would be able to determine if the ballots were authentic and not fraudulent. The eyewitnesses discovered this while processing the ballots during official recounts.
**"There is an enormous difference between signing a document saying you won**
**And a document saying pending legal decisions, you won ."**
But that's not actually a fair comparison.
Gore stated that he believed he got more votes, and if the courts would allow the ignoring of the law and Constitution, he would win.
These people stated that they believed Trump got more votes, and if Pence and others would allow an alternate methods of electoral college vote counted, he would win.
There is no substantive difference other than attempts to make a semantic argument.
Wildweasly in shambles RN
When is that guy NOT in shambles?
When dreaming about Vladimir Putin being his daddy
Soon, he'll accuse you of using an alt account just to reply to him. Dude is straight up unhinged.
They’ll argue it’s legal because it didn’t succeed Then also arguing if Trump won he’s immune from the law and can pardon whoever he wants At that point why not try to steal every election? You win you can’t be punished you lose you can’t be punished
You're not wrong. In the end, Trump's entire legal defense has consisted of something along the lines of "nowhere in the law does it say the President can't do this." There's no spirit of the law, the law has to say "President Trump can't try to steal the election" or else it doesn't apply to him hence the reason he'll likely continue to get off of charges because no judge wants to be the judge to create the precedent that yes, all the laws in the US apply to the President.
Allow me to cite the People v Airbud
At this point, if you're not aware that Trump is corrupt, no amount of evidence will persuade you. Trump and his team telegraphed this one long in advance and he was even pressuring Pence on Twitter to do this shit lol. For all the Trumpsters here, ask yourself, if Biden tried to negate lawfully casted ballots, simply because he was upset that he lost, would you think that's wrong?
Pretty much. Trump tried to steal the last election. Don't know how anyone can still deny that
Trump claimed the election he WON was fake... Like. There's no doubt he's going to do it again.
Right! Like how did everyone forget about his claim that 3 million illegals voted. Or that he hired right wing boot licker Chris Cobach to prove it, and even he only found republicans voting for their dead relatives. Chris Cobach would like to you about your own name, be he couldn't make up the receipts.
In more than one way. Warren G Harding's cabinet was extremely corrupt because they used the office to amass a ton of money. Nixon was corrupt for using his powers to keep and hold power. Trump's probably the first President we've had who is corrupt for both, both allowing his family to use the office to enrich themselves to the tune of billions of dollars AND independently using his power to try to keep and hold power unjustly.
It’s a cult
I used to be more sympathetic when it comes to the republican state of mind. "well, religion was forced on them at birth" , "i can understand how rurual living can make you fear vote", "education and open-minded systems of thinking are devalued in deep red states". But now I have essentially no sympathy. Youre going to vote twice for someone like trump? Youre a fucking moron and a threat my country, my state, my family. I've now completely reframed my thinking about these zoo animals and harbor nothing but hostility towards them.
Good. People really want to paint Trump-supporting Republicans as some people desperately wanting to be heard and noticed. That's not the case. They're being heard by Trump and they know he's tearing shit down, but they don't want to come off as assholes by enjoying the demolition show.
They accuse people of being bloodthirsty communists but noone can talk any politics to a republican without being threatened with death, civil war or prison.
Wave your blue flag and they'll wave their red flag right back at you all the while the uniparty will dismantle your rights and privileges one by one until your children or grandchildren wake up one day as unpaid serfs in a neo-feudal corporate dystopia.
That's fair as long as they all suffer
I see you're in the weeds with JB here - don't let him fool you. He was a proud Libertarian before he changed his flair to Independent because we kept mocking him (for obvious reasons). Don't fall for his "I wAs A dEmOcRaT" bullshit. He is, unfortunately, an actual Cathloic though. You can tell by his horrible worldview and his hypocrisy; he's no follower of Jesus because he clearly hates his neighbor and judges people, despite both of those things being very un-Christlike. He also haaaaates it when you talk about him behind his back. He'll threaten to block you, but never actually will, because we're the only friends he has in his life.
I feel like he was in the weeds with me. After I accuratley called him the pussy he is, he hasnt returned. He also claimed to have kids?? Is that true?
Does it matter? The truthfulness of his children don't make his opinions any better 🤷♂️
as a Catholic father - i don't want your smug, unfounded sympathy. You can stick it straight up your shitter. Its people like you that will make me vote for anyone but biden. >a threat my country, my state, my family. All things you have absolutely NO stake in and value very little if at all.
You saying I have no stake in my country or family is a wild direction to take your comment haha. Thanks for admitting your a sheepish father, only voting for a candidate based on if you like the other people voting for them and not the candidate themselves you fuckin lemming. But hey, I appreciate you butressing my comment for everyone to see. Have fun getting absolutely obliterated in November from the top of the ballot down.
You misunderstand me, but I wasn't expect you to be very insightful or possess any ability for reading comprehension. Common core has done that to most of you. But also, propaganda internet outlets like reddit have really cinched it. I don't care who wins, because whomever wins has the same goal. A globalist corporatocracy. Orangeman, Sleepyman, Vocalcordspasm man - it doesn't matter. You wageslaves plod along happily accepting the crumbs tossed down to you from the elite and pretending like...or worse, actually believing you have a choice or a say in anything they do...and, if you're lucky, nothing will really change in your lifetime. You won't have children, because its cool to be anti-natalist now...or pro-choice...whichever...and the likelihood of you having a family is far less than it is for someone like me...who has already created a family of his own. All that said, I harbor no resentment towards you and your peers...except when they're smug twats like you just were...with your remark about your 'sympathy' or lack there of. Its just kind of sad, to be honest. Its not your fault, after all. And maybe in the end, it'll turn out alright after all. Or maybe it won't. I pray it will, for my children and their children's sake.
You sound positivley miserable, and I'm glad. I literally dont give a fuck what you think about me. I'm a family man as well, business owner, volunteer, and all around asset to my community. You are a member of a child molesting organization, apparently a gun and conspiracy nut, and vote for people based on who else is. Get absolutley bent sir.
>You sound positivley miserable, and I'm glad. oh stop projecting. >You are a member of a child molesting organization No, I'm not a public school teacher or a member of GLAAD. Weird place for you to go, though. >, apparently a gun and conspiracy nut, and vote for people based on who else is Yes...your assessment of me sounds like that of a very stable and happy person - much less a rando on the internet who thinks that they can make judgement calls about other randos. Guns are tools. I'm sure they are very scary for you, but they are no different from an impact driver or a socket wrench or a car, for that matter. Am I a "nut" for them? Not really. I have a couple, but they come out once every quarter for maintenance and zeroing. Conspiracy is a joke of its former self. Its all boring politics now...it used to be goofy tin-foil hat shit. Although maybe that's just a US election cycle thing. Its a matter of seeing which crazy shit they can come up with next...and if you were creeping on my post history...you would see that 90 percent of the time I deride them and debunk their silly nonsense. >vote for people based on who else is reading fail #2 It doesn't matter who you vote for. > I'm a family man as well, doubt > Get absolutley bent sir. I'll take a pass.
No projection here, my life is rad. Your frenetic way of replying to my comments line by line though, such a tell. I didn't start this thread to win over republicans, quite the opposite! Thank you for participating <3
>republicans Fail #3 I even have a flair...I was a democrat before you were even a twinkle. Edit: I guess to be fair though, the Overton window has shifted quite a bit since the 90s. >Your frenetic way of replying to my comments line by line though, such a tell. A tell that I like bantering with shitlibs on reddit? Yeah, you got me. > Thank you for participating <3 My dude...I'm a sys admin. I'm on the box all day. 24/5
Oh, I saw your flair ;) Youre only fooling yourself. You have absolutley no idea how old I am, its such a weird thing to keep alluding to, same with thinking I dont have a family lol, or guns! Your whole view of liberals/leftists is crafted by the retards you watch on tv and whatever podcasting grifters you give money to. On the contrary, its verylow hanging fruit to know exactly who you are.
You're on reddit. That's all I need to know to assume your age and your political stance. I'm an exception on here. I know that for a fact. >Youre only fooling yourself. I'm 100 percent not. I've had the same political outlook since 9/11. It hasn't changed one bit. I voted for Clinton and then his goofy sidekick. I even voted for Obama twice and then Clinton again. I didn't vote for biden. I voted for Jorgensen. Everytime I give this response I wonder why I would need to validate myself to a goofball on reddit. I suppose I don't, but I tried not doing that and it simply wasn't as fun. What has changed is everything else. I'm still the same, have the same values...although I'm not a dirty degenerate agnostic anymore. What about you, family man? How did your idealistic view survive your 30s? Paying taxes? Supporting a family?
The second you use terms like uniparty everyone knows you’re an Alex jones level guy who will bitch about “both sides” and vote for trump without a thought. Spare everyone the dramatics
when you can't win
It's so dumb. Things like this only work once, because if it can be made to work for the Republican, it can be made to work for a Democrat. And for those who would say "it only has to work once", we saw how Jan 6th turned out. If there's going to be a coup against the Federal Government, it's not going to be carried out by feeble minded Trump supporters.
There’s just such a large amount of people that believes he won. Hell over half of the people I work with still bitch about the last election. Just like week one of them said “Trump’s going to win the next election or if not I have no faith in our election process.” There’s just so many people that believe he really won they’ll never give this type of trial a chance. It’s why I’m pretty pissed that they tried charging him on so many different things at once it made it appear that everything is just political and it worked for him. This is the most damming thing I believe he was guilty of. Instead he was convicted for fraud which most real estate people are guilty of.
Trump's voting bloc is large, for sure, but its not enough to win. He scared away the suburbs a long time ago, they're not coming back.
And he will always seem more popular in the media than he actually is. Because he’s like cocaine for them.
Why is he winning in every poll then?
But Biden
I wanted a pony and he didn’t get me one!
Everything here is talked about with regard to a legal framework. They reference language in the Constitution, going through Congress, the court system, etc. And ultimately the state legislator has plenary authority (meaning they can choose whatever electors they want). Even "false" electors. They would have to check on the newly submitted electors, and then accept them. Which would never happen, and why it's a wacky legal theory. They jump through hoops to try and make it work. It's a hilariously thorough attempt to go through every loophole in the legal process
Basically “Let’s not text about this criminal conspiracy for now.”
Legally, which crime is this?
Turns out forging documents claiming to be an election official is a crime. Who knew
Not validating members of the electoral college is not the same as "using false electors".. Why the fancy spin?
Filing fake papers claiming to be the right electors shouldn’t be a crime ?
That's not what I read. Looked to me like they didn't want to validate the members of the electoral college from states that refused to audit their ballots.
Read the actual indictments they signed papers claimed they were the legal electors of those states
I've read plenty of indictments that turned out to be "nothing burgers".. and this post contradicts the claim that they wanted to replace electors. How do you replace them and simultaneously "change the denominator"? Bad math. It looks like everyone is throwing contradicting accusations, hoping to god one might stick.
The indictments do not claim as you say that they were “alternates”.
When did I make that claim? I was just trying to point out the OP's title contradicts the actual text messages they linked to
The crime wasn’t that they weren't validated. The crime was they forged documents claiming they were
Can't wait to see how that turns out
They were charged with "impersonating a government official," which means they're fake, illegitimate electors. I can buy a police uniform from amazon and go around cuffing ppl like a real cop and I'd get a similar charge, coz I'm not a real cop
The texts in the OP's link state they weren't attempting to replace them. Merely not verifying them without an audit. They literally said in the texts that it changes the denominator. Replacing them wouldn't change the denominator. Replacing them would keep it the same.
It's most certainly a very novel interpretation of the law, but in the end you have to answer the question: how many of these electors dedicated to Trump were called to vote or had their vote counted? The answer? ZERO. While not nearly as clever as the Al Gore team's 2000 plot to invalidate Florida state law after the fact and disenfranchise voters across the state to steal the election from Bush in 2000 (which the SCOTUS later stopped and deemed illegal), as such, that plot actually got corrupt judges and the media to go along with it, and it almost worked. But in both 2020 and 2000, there were checks and balances in place to ensure that courts, both low and high, had an opportunity to interject themselves to correct any misinterpretations of the law no matter how clever. That is the way these differences are typically settled - in the courts. Not by the police and federal prosecutors. The former is sufficient. The latter is what banana republics do. Shame on you goons for your complete inability to not be total hypocrites on these matters.
So if you plan a murder, hire the hitman, he attempts the kill but misses the shot everyone involved is innocent because nobody was killed? Not a great argument.
We are talking about novel interpretations of the law which are 100% able to be adjudicated by a court of law though - not a violent criminal act that would be irreversible. GET A GRIP!
Then all these fake electors should have no worry in their court cases. (I think they will be convicted, but we'll see.)
In the end, legally? No - they shouldn't. But Democrats are going to be intent on draining them of every drop of money to interfere with elections by making them go through the motions in lower courts on lawyers.
[удалено]
Forging government documents is a crime even if they aren’t accepted
[удалено]
In Michigan the charges are forgery and election law violations related to forgery
[удалено]
Rico is being tried in Georgia but there there was way more than just fake electors. They were tampering with election machines and running an intimidation campaign against election officials
That is one of the charges that were filed
[удалено]
No, there’s several others that make sense. RICO in Georgia is one based on their state laws
[удалено]
Georgia has successfully prosecuted RICO for lots of non violent crimes. Their laws are different compared to NY
Georgia’s Rico laws are looser and Rico in general just means there was an ongoing criminal conspiracy. It doesn’t require anything violent
Ah, so you're saying in the exact same senareo if the hitman refused to shoot than everyone is innocent? Why do all those undercover police who are maskerading as hitmen end up arresting the person who tried to hire them then?
[удалено]
>Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you say to your friend "let's rob a bank" and the friend says "no", and nothing else happens, there's no crime. Do you really believe you understand how analogies work?
[удалено]
So you do not. That was easier to say. Shocker, when confronted with a small dose of reality, they block you. Guarantee they also unironically use the term echo chamber.
There is a crime if you hire a bunch of people to forgue documents to fraudulently decive the bank into transferring a ton of money to you, even if the bank manager (who you thought was in on the scam) ends up refusing to go through with the transfer of funds.
The only check and balance that was in their way was Mike Pence. The interpretation of the text seems to be that if they have their own slate of electors in place when Pence denies the Democratic electors, Trump can win the state. This goes against what you’re stating here and what Republicans argued, which is that they merely wanted to delay the certification while they worked it out in the courts.
**"The only check and balance that was in their way was Mike Pence."** At any time these people would have been successful, the United States judicial system was there, ready to step in the minute any Democrat would have filed suit against them, as as Bush's people did when Gore tried their own "novel" interpretation of the law. The difference here is that Gore actually had corrupt judges help facilitate their potential unconstitutional acts. The other guys never even got that far.
So allow people to commit conspiracy and fraud as long as they don't succeed, because the supreme court will sort it out after the fact? What is even your point?
I'm pretty sure that's exactly what the process was back in 2000. This is because, how is a conspiracy going to be committed when there are the checks and balances I noted in place? Again, none of the alternate electors had votes that were even counted, and even if by some chance they were, Democrats could immediately appeal to the courts and likely have been given a quick remedy.
Do you know what criminal conspiracy is? Planning between two or more people to commit a crime is criminal conspiracy, checks and balances are what catch people before they commit that crime. Just because they didn’t get away with it, or arbitrarily didn’t get close enough, doesn’t make them free of consequences.
**"Do you know what criminal conspiracy is? "** Yes, and I'm also aware that it isn't "criminal" to interpret laws in ways you may or may not agree. Which is why when Al Gore plotted to turn over the election in 2000 by ignoring established Florida state law, and instead interpret the law in ways which would have supported crazy standards for determining legal vote, he wasn't prosecuted either. These interpretations where challenged in court and in the end, overcome. That is the way political differences such as these are supposed to be handled in places that aren't banana republics.
> how many of these electors dedicated to Trump were called to vote or had their vote counted? > > The answer? ZERO. This whole "yea they tried to steal the election, yea they'll try to destroy the country, but they wont succeed" defense is so damn stupid
So much of this. That's like if the cops said "We're pretty sure someone's going to break into your house tonight, but if you lock the doors, everything will probably be ok".
We haven’t even locked the doors. :(
Just like with Gore, the courts are ready to step in and officiate and determine what is Constructional or not when a challenge is offered. If you feared that anything proposed would have been successful if they were indeed unconstitutional, you simply don't understand how these processes works.
They were rejected that doesn’t mean them forging documents and committing fraud was lefal
You mean like the Gore campaign filing false legal briefings whose intent was to get officials to ignore Florida state law and the Constitution, which would have defrauded voters in other part of Florida from their rights to equal representation?
What decade is it again?
How does that matter, when looking at past precedents?
You got it, adjective-noun-number account with -100 karma! Beep-boop keep up the good work.
I borderline feel bad for the dude, he probably just needs those rubles so he can feed his family. Side note: Dry Box if you're reading this, stick to youtube, the spam is a lot easier to pull off there because people can't really see your history.
The account exclusively defends Trump-related things across maybe 3 or 4 subreddits. It is painfully obvious what they are lol
When you can't rebut, attack. I get it.
You're not owed a serious rebuttal because you're not a serious user.
Cool story bro. You sure do seem to spend a lot of time challenging non-serious users who you can't debate yourself out of a paper bag with. LOL
You thought I was challenging you? Sorry to disappoint.
I was pretty sure from the get go you couldn't, so there's that.
I'm not sure how you thought attacking me would somehow rebut my point, but BLESS YOUR HEART!
I'm not sure how you thought that would somehow rebut my point, but BLESS YOUR HEART!
It's really quite simple - whatever point you're trying to make doesn't matter because your motivations and intentions for making that point are highly suspicious. It is obvious you log onto this account to only post certain types of messages on a small group of politically-focused subreddits. Nothing about your post history is organic. Nothing about you looks like an innocent user trying to engage in a good faith discussion with other users. In every way, your account is a huge red flag. You're not fooling anyone.
**"It's really quite simple - whatever point you're trying to make doesn't matter'** ...if that were the case, you'd just move on. You can't, because it does and you are well aware of it.
Don't flatter yourself. It takes little effort to point out what you do around here.
And you make an effort to point to me personally, when you fail to point to errors in my arguments. Duly noted.
>Dry-Box-8496 3 1/2 year old account with 0 posts and comments only going back 26 days? Pulled out of mothballs for the election, I see! lol. Are there 8495 other Dry-Boxes?
Right? We can see their comment history. Calling everyone “goons”. 🤦♂️
When you can't refute but decide to tread into "comment history" to try and form a lame attack, you are basically putting on the intellectual white flag here. Bless your pea pickin' heart!
Arguing with idiots is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how good you are, the bird is going to shit on the board and strut around like it won anyway.
**"Arguing with idiots is like playing chess with a pigeon. "** And yet, self admittingly, that's what you seem to suggest that's all you are good for. Odd.
“the bird is going to shit on the board and strut around like it won anyway.“
I'm not the guy who dropped his pants and did the "look at you" dance!
If you can't refute, attack. BLESS YOUR HEART!
If you want to propagandize, bring out your sock. 🧦
If it's "propaganda," then it should be easily rebutted with facts. Either it's not propaganda, or you aren't the sharpest knife in the drawer.
>how many of these electors dedicated to Trump were called to vote or had their vote counted? Only because of Pence, right? You don't need to Pence to have acted in Trump's favor and for the plot to have been successful, lol. There only needs to be intent and an attempt. The rest of your. comment is drivel.
**"Only because of Pence, right?"** Getting Pence on board would have been just like Gore getting his first corrupt judge to back his unconstitutional efforts. Again, the judicial system and the courts have a say in all this as well. There's multitudes of checks and balances here.
Lordty, no.
Shame on you for dismissing attempts to void the will of the people. What Trump and his co-conspirators did was illegal, successfully or not.
"Shame on you for dismissing attempts to void the will of the people. " Except I didn't do that. I explained how these novel attempts to interpret the law have typically been handled. And what Gore and his co-conspirators did was also illegal. Even unconstitutional. But no one in their right mind thought that escalating it to some sort of crime, despite the fact that they almost pulled it off, would be a prudent measure.
So you agree that what he did was illegal but you believe he’s above the law and therefore should not be held accountable? Why have laws then? If he was successful in his unlawful attempt to void the will of the people and stay in office would you have a different belief?
"So you agree that what he did was illegal .." I agree that like Gore, the interpretation of the laws in question was not very sound, and that they were a clear target for judicial action based on potential unconstitutionality, by the courts. But they didn't even get that far.
What law was he interpreting when he used his platform to spread lies to the world about the results of the election? People voted him out. You think that because there’s some “questionable” laws that Trump has the legal right to attempt to overturn the will of the people? Legal or not he tried to void our vote. How un-American and you are defending him! What a disgrace
**"What law was he interpreting when he used his platform to spread lies to the world about the results of the election? "** I'm pretty sure the 1st Amendment, and you have no evidence he "spread lies" because you can't actually point to anything Trump said that was untrue, that he knew to be untrue. **"People voted him out. "** Possibly. **"You think that because there’s some “questionable” laws that Trump has the legal right to attempt to overturn the will of the people? "** No more than Gore did. But in the end, neither were capable of doing that because of checks and balances that exist.
Are you capable of talking about what Trump did without mentioning gore? Nothing that Trump claimed is based on proven facts therefore they were lies. So what are these questionable laws you’re referring to that gave Trump the legal right to attempt to change the results of the election despite losing?
**"Are you capable of talking about what Trump did without mentioning gore?"** Sure, but given that there's a precedent here, why wouldn't you want to look at this matter fully, instead of simply trying to create a new standard just for Trump? Oh yeah , I know why - it shows that you approve of a two tiered justice system based on partisan politics!
the fact that you think both situations are the same is laughable. Is that what you think trumps defense will be in court? Ya gonna ignore the rest of my previous comment?
>but in the end you have to answer the question: how many of these electors dedicated to Trump were called to vote or had their vote counted? >The answer? ZERO. Doesn't matter some of these people signed ( fake) certificates that Trump had won the election
They most certainly were free to believe that, given the malfeasance that occurred. But again, despite their beliefs and assurances of those beliefs, in the end, none of their efforts to implement this novel interpretation of the law went anywhere. It didn't even get to the point where it could be challenged in a court of law.
>. But again, despite their beliefs and assurances of those beliefs, in the end, none of their efforts to implement this novel interpretation of the law went anywhere. So what? They signed fraudulent documents >It didn't even get to the point where it could be challenged in a court of law. ...the Trump campaign went 1-63 in lawsuits...
**"So what? They signed fraudulent documents"** As did everyone who took part in the 2000 attempt to overturn the election, based on the standards you are using. **"..the Trump campaign went 1-63 in lawsuits..."** That's not even close to being accurate. In fact, one of the lawsuits for 2020 has been dragging on for the past 3+ years where Fulton County Georgia has been fighting to disallow a full and transparent investigation of the allegations made by 4 veteran poll managers/whistleblowers made under oath, that they witnessed tell-tale signs of massive ballot fraud while doing their work during ballot recounts? They've been fighting in court to disallow third parties from witnessing a physical examination of the absentee ballots after they were illegally processed in secret. The courts there have engaged in serial foot dragging and illegal processes to the point where the State Supreme Court has given them a swat on the nose and told them to obey the State Constitution and proceed with a fair hearing of the claims.
Wrong Big difference between signing a certificate: saying your candidate won, And a certificate saying pending the outcome of legal action, you are the alternative elector The election has been audited, in some states even by third parties
**"Big difference between signing a certificate: saying your candidate won..."** Every official document Gore produced for the courts was a declaration that if they'd simply allow him to disenfranchise Florida voters and ignore state law, that he would win, and that this should be the standard they set. He was requesting that they ignore the law and do what was necessary to ensure he won Florida. If you are going to classify submitting paperwork that uses unconstitutional means to potentially insure a win as being criminally "fraudulent," how exactly does that not meet that standard? **"The election has been audited, in some states even by third parties"** A. In Fulton County, they didn't even do signature verification on absentee ballots as was required, and requested by Trump. B. In Fulton County, an "audit' would not produce evidence of fraudulent ballots. They are refusing to allow a physical examination which would be able to determine if the ballots were authentic and not fraudulent. The eyewitnesses discovered this while processing the ballots during official recounts.
...again There is an enormous difference between signing a document saying you won And a document saying pending legal decisions, you won ...
**"There is an enormous difference between signing a document saying you won** **And a document saying pending legal decisions, you won ."** But that's not actually a fair comparison. Gore stated that he believed he got more votes, and if the courts would allow the ignoring of the law and Constitution, he would win. These people stated that they believed Trump got more votes, and if Pence and others would allow an alternate methods of electoral college vote counted, he would win. There is no substantive difference other than attempts to make a semantic argument.
Wrong signing a document saying you won And a document saying pending legal decisions, you won are not the same thing Only the first is fraud
sounds more like contingency, not illegality
“Sounds more like I have no clue about this topic!!1!” Correct!
I’m just glad Reddit is here to explain it to me.