Is Trump in the wrong if he actually believes the election was stolen? (1 Viewer)

[KarmaPolice]

I guess legally it would make him less culpable if he truly believed that, but either way it should disqualify him from politics ever again.  

 

[roadkill1292]

Election officials in all the contested states, the Attorney General and lawyers and campaign managers in his own camp told him that they couldn't find any evidence of fraud. Trump chose instead to follow the advice of drunk Rudy, the kraken lady who testified in court that no reasonable person would believe some of the claims she made, and flat-earther Lin Wood.

The same dichotomy occurred when he pressured the VP into abandoning his constitutional duty.

He was criminal and stupid but mostly criminally stupid.

 

[sho nuff]

Well of course someone disagrees with it.  Look, I don’t profess to understand any of this.  But it is a peer reviewed study and is set to appear in a reputable journal.  The only thing I’m saying is this - I’m not prepared to trust the media when they say there was no voter fraud.  Why?  Because I know they aren’t investigating it, because they don’t want to find it.  This is the same media that pimped the Russian collusion crap and said the Hunter laptop was Russian disinformation.  That’s where we are at.  People no longer trust our institutions, and people believe what they want to believe.  The truth dies in darkness, and we are in dark times.

How about trust every study and audit of actual votes?  Fraud has been investigated…and over and over andnover…actual fraud is found to be statistically insignificant.

We are in dark times because a conman pushed intentionally false information meant to kill public trust and it worked on far too many.

 

[Prinefan]

I didn’t say wrong - I agree. I said illegal. 

What he asked Pence to do was against the law.  His own lawyers (among all his other sycophants) told him so.  By doing so he was soliciting an illegal act.  I really don't think he wants to cop an insanity plea (but he does show a lot of symptoms).  "Detached from reality" as his own guy said.

 

[The Commish]

I’m asking you to put away your preconceived notions and play along with me here…..

if Trump actually did/does believe the election was stolen, wouldn’t he actually be in the right to do everything possible to enforce that belief?                                     
 

I don’t happen to believe he’s correct, but if in his mind he is, and I think he truly believes that he was robbed, then isn’t ot possible to make the assertion that Trump believes that he’s the one defending democracy? 

There are certainly other questions that would raise about Trump if he believes the election was stolen despite all the evidence to the contrary. But if he genuinely believes it, his actions are plausible in my estimation. 
 

Beliefs are positions we hold beyond what the evidence requires.  All the evidence presented shows the election was NOT stolen.  The facts back that up.  Beliefs do NOT get to replace facts.  It is COMPLETELY IRRELEVENT what he chooses to believe in light of the facts.

 

[sho nuff]

He was doing this same rigged election shtick before the 2016 election, except suddenly nobody (including him anymore) cared because he won.  But that also means he has no credibility in this area because he’ll just say it’s rigged no matter what.

He tried then…had a whole commission led by another conman and fraud believer in Kris Kobach.   Then commission found?

https://apnews.com/article/north-america-donald-trump-us-news-ap-top-news-elections-f5f6a73b2af546ee97816bb35e82c18d

 

[roadkill1292]

Trump had plenty of avenues available to him to investigate for fraud. When those failed him, he did not have the right to circumvent the constitution.

Trump defenders should be reminded that, a year and a half later, evidence of significant fraud still hasn't been found, the Arizona "audit" being only the most spectacular of those failures.

 

[lazyike]

Someone is trespassing on your property and when running away you shoot him in the back with a shotgun in kill him. 

If you say I didn't know that was illegal you think the judge says ok and dismisses any murder charges?

 

[quick-hands]

Someone is trespassing on your property and when running away you shoot him in the back with a shotgun in kill him. 

If you say I didn't know that was illegal you think the judge says ok and dismisses any murder charges?

Is he part of the capitol police?   Cuz yea I think so.

 

[lazyike]

Is he part of the capitol police?   Cuz yea I think so.

Whoops, you missed the "running away" part of my scenario.

 

[quick-hands]

Whoops, you missed the "running away" part of my scenario.

No I didn't.    I think a capitol police officer would get away with it.

 

[lazyike]

No I didn't.    I think a capitol police officer would get away with it.

I don't...if she had been the only intruder and running away we all see the scrutiny law enforcement is facing these days. So no, most definitely no.

 

[quick-hands]

I don't...if she had been the only intruder and running away we all see the scrutiny law enforcement is facing these days. So no, most definitely no.

Ok.   It was your hypothetical so I'm fine with you position.

 

[Prinefan]

No I didn't.    I think a capitol police officer would get away with it.

Nice try at derailment.

 

[GordonGekko]

He was criminal and stupid but mostly criminally stupid.

Trump had plenty of avenues available to him to investigate for fraud. When those failed him, he did not have the right to circumvent the constitution.

Trump defenders should be reminded that, a year and a half later, evidence of significant fraud still hasn't been found, the Arizona "audit" being only the most spectacular of those failures.

You can have any opinions you want. It's your free speech.

But you can't just make up the law as you go because you despise Donald Trump.

If you would like to make an argument that the laws around sedition, treason, conspiracy and obstruction should be changed, then I'm all ears. If you want to argue that the Brandenburg Test should be revoked because it's extremely flawed and is no longer applicable to the social media age, I'm all ears. If you want to argue that SCOTUS should repack how specific intent should be treated, then I'm all ears. If you want to argue that there should be increased limits on Executive Privilege and a Constitutional Amendment to support that, then I'm all ears.

New Mexico is the state most likely to have a pathway to go after Donald Trump regarding the faithless elector issue. I've already cited the legal pathway to that in an earlier post. No one is stopping you from looking it up and formulating how Trump and/or Eastman violated the law.

Circumvent the United States Constitution exactly how?

Here's the thing that you and many of the other radical leftists don't get. Just because Donald Trump is a failed 4th rate reality TV thug and exhausting grifter narcissist does not incinerate the reality that he's still an American citizen and his legal pathway in this country must be held to the strict standard of actual due process. That's not a defense of Trump, that's a defense of the principle of law, which is designed to defend our entire Republic.

Nothing is stopping you right now from empowering yourself with more knowledge regarding the legal complexities of J6. No one here is forcing you to make up things as you go and remain a low information poster. That's entirely on you.

If there was anything substantial in place to put Donald Trump in prison, he'd already be there.

And I've already said in previous reply that the smoking fire that could actually get Trump in chains will be the pardons of Roger Stone and Paul Manafort. I literally handed it to you and you'll still just repeat the cheap shock marketing outrage porn clickbait from social media.

Team Blue can keep going after Trump if they want, but the cross section of the American public that they need to vote for them have mostly stopped paying attention.

 

[quick-hands]

Nice try at derailment.

Don't ask for an opinion if you don't want one.   Just thump your chest.

Sorry I get you and lazy Ike confused.

Directed at prinefan ...Thanks.  

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

Josh Marshall of Taking Points Memo has a good take on this a few days ago: if you walk up to someone on the street and blow their head off, it's not enough to say you “believed” they were a threat to your life and get away with a self-defense claim. There is a clear legal principle regarding the “reasonable person” standard. If a judge/jury finds that a reasonable person wouldn’t have thought their life was in danger, then you can’t claim self defense. 

I think that’s what the committee has been doing trotting out all the Trump insiders who told him he had lost. They want to establish that any reasonable person would have known he lost the election, which makes him legally culpable for efforts to overturn it

 

[zoonation]

I dunno. I think Trump is an ##### and did indeed lose the election, but what exactly did he do that was in the wrong? What exactly did he do that was illegal if he thought that the election was stolen? 

Fleeced his flock for 250 million dollars?

 

[zoonation]

Unfortunately Trump surrounds himself with Yes People who tell him what he wants to believe.  If he doesn’t like the message, he replaces the messenger.  

This is bang on.  How anyone could vote for that serial lying delusional narcissist is absolutely baffling to me.  He tried to subvert democracy itself.  But gas is expensive (and would be if he was president).  

 

[zoonation]

I guess legally it would make him less culpable if he truly believed that, but either way it should disqualify him from politics ever again.  

Ignorance of the law is not a defense.  

 

[GordonGekko]

Josh Marshall of Taking Points Memo has a good take on this a few days ago: if you walk up to someone on the street and blow their head off, it's not enough to say you “believed” they were a threat to your life and get away with a self-defense claim. There is a clear legal principle regarding the “reasonable person” standard. If a judge/jury finds that a reasonable person wouldn’t have thought their life was in danger, then you can’t claim self defense. 

I think that’s what the committee has been doing trotting out all the Trump insiders who told him he had lost. They want to establish that any reasonable person would have known he lost the election, which makes him legally culpable for efforts to overturn it

Direct Headline: ‘I Refuse Not to Be Heard’: Georgia in Uproar Over Voting Meltdown

Georgia’s voting fiasco stemmed primarily from the 30,000 new voting machines the state bought last year for $107 million from Dominion Voting Systems, which is based in Denver. The machines bought by the state last year were instantly controversial. Security experts said they were insecure. Privacy experts worried that the screens could be seen from nearly 30 feet away. Budget hawks balked at the price tag.

By Richard Fausset, Reid J. Epstein and Rick Rojas June 11, 2020

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/09/us/politics/atlanta-voting-georgia-primary.html

Direct Headline: Warren, Klobuchar, Wyden, and Pocan Investigate Vulnerabilities and Shortcomings of Election Technology Industry with Ties to Private Equity

Three private equity-owned election technology vendors serve 90% of eligible voters but fail to sufficiently innovate, improve, and protect deteriorating voting systems; Election security experts have noted for years that our nation's voting systems and election infrastructure are under serious threat

Warren December 10, 2019

https://www.warren.senate.gov/oversight/letters/warren-klobuchar-wyden-and-pocan-investigate-vulnerabilities-and-shortcomings-of-election-technology-industry-with-ties-to-private-equity

******

The first problem Team Blue is going to have is that Stacey Abrams denounced Dominion Voting Systems during the 2020 primaries in Georgia, as part of her strategy to push that as part of a larger overall accusation of GOP voter suppression and to provide cover for her 2018 run for Governor in which she claimed she won but the election was stolen from her.

Amy Klobuchar, who might be on the short list for VP in 2024, and Elizabeth Warren are legitimate fringe POTUS contenders.  You can't have them denounce DVS a year before the 2020 general cycle, then again in the primaries and then pretend they are pure as the driven snow in November during Election Day. You can't escape the toxicity of those optics forever. You certainly can't ignore that narrative when Trump says, " I didn't trust Dominion, and why should I do that, since Klobuchar, Warren and Abrams all denounced them and said they were a threat to secure elections?"

All of this fuels a new counter narrative that Trump was right to question DVS. And by doing so, he believes he won the 2020 election. This washes out the obstruction pathway.

You are not going to get a conviction on a former POTUS, even one as reviled as Trump, based on circumstantial evidence alone. It's just not going to happen. You are going to need irrefutable video with audio where Trump says he knows he lost the election and he's going to try to cook it anyway.

I'll say this again - If some of you don't like the law, then have your Party win a crap load of elections to get the majorities to formally change the law the right way. Until then, you are stuck with the actual law on the books now. And you can't just stretch it and warp it and try to finesse it to try to convict Donald Trump.

The average American citizen is a low information voter. That means they don't see the hearings, the few that are still watching them, and realize it's NOT a criminal trial. The more Team Blue pushes, the worse it gets. Both impeachments, Steele, Mueller and all the rest creates the long term narrative that the Democratic Party failed to convict Trump when they had the chance. That's how the masses will see it.

If you fail to provide a return on investment, people tune out and stop caring and believe rightfully that your Party can't deliver for them.

 

[GordonGekko]

Ignorance of the law is not a defense.  

Direct Headline: Georgia Havoc Raises New Doubts on Pricey Voting Machines

By Nick Corasaniti and Stephanie Saul June 11, 2020

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/11/us/politics/georgia-voting-machines.html

Direct Headline: Georgia’s June primary raised concerns about Dominion

By Staff Reports December 3, 2020

https://www.dailyadvocate.com/2020/12/03/georgias-june-primary-raised-concerns-about-dominion/

*****

You know what will end up a good "defense" for Trump?

Stacey Abrams own political arm, the Fair Fight Action group ( already accused of openly skirting campaign finance laws and intentionally making a mockery of the IRS to boot) has always been financially aligned to Georgia's Coalition For Good Governance.

CGG has openly labeled, on public record, DVS as “unauditable" and "unconstitutional.”  CGG's head Marilyn Marks is on record saying DVS is a system built on "a game of who can rig the system the best.”

The more prominent the discussion of the Georgia battleground gets deep dived, the greater the pathway for Trump to say "I don't trust the results of Dominion, why should I and why is that a problem when POTUS candidate and Democrat Stacey Abrams feels the exact same way?"

Thus he believes he won the 2020 election. Thus you can't show specific intent, thus the obstruction charge washes away, thus you can't convict him, thus he is free to run for POTUS in 2024.

Team Blue brought this onto themselves. The only reason this isn't getting wide coverage is because the majority of the activist complicit MSM leans hard left.

 

[Prinefan]

Team Blue certainly did bring this onto themselves when they didn't take Trump seriously enough in 2016.  You're right about that.

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

I’m asking you to put away your preconceived notions and play along with me here…..

if Trump actually did/does believe the election was stolen, wouldn’t he actually be in the right to do everything possible to enforce that belief?                                     
 

We expect our leaders to attempt all manner of political maneuvers to get what they want.

We also expect them to not blatantly attempt to circumvent the law.

At least we did before the Boland Amendment.

 

[cubd8]

I’m asking you to put away your preconceived notions and play along with me here…..

if Trump actually did/does believe the election was stolen, wouldn’t he actually be in the right to do everything possible to enforce that belief?                                     
 

I don’t happen to believe he’s correct, but if in his mind he is, and I think he truly believes that he was robbed, then isn’t ot possible to make the assertion that Trump believes that he’s the one defending democracy? 

There are certainly other questions that would raise about Trump if he believes the election was stolen despite all the evidence to the contrary. But if he genuinely believes it, his actions are plausible in my estimation. 
 

He had his chance, through the courts, to contest the election. To my memory, every judge that heard any of his arguments tossed them out of court.

He also surrounded himself with crazy people and little evidence.

He had a window of time to challenge, he lost and should have put country over self, especially as President.

He may believe what he is saying or maybe he uses it to raise money. Maybe both. Doesn't really matter at this point.

If he wants to live in 2020, he can, but the rest of the country (Outside of the Jan 6th committee and Democrats/Media who will keep that in Trump in the limelight) is moving on.

 

[supermike80]

Yes. He is wrong.  Completely and totally wrong.

He was shown he was wrong…there is no logical reason for him to believe he was right.

And he took unethical and seemingly illegal means to do so.

No amount if trying to justify that will refute the facts of the election.

Hey heres a thought...Try to answer the qustion

 

[supermike80]

I’m asking you to put away your preconceived notions and play along with me here…..

if Trump actually did/does believe the election was stolen, wouldn’t he actually be in the right to do everything possible to enforce that belief?                                     
 

I don’t happen to believe he’s correct, but if in his mind he is, and I think he truly believes that he was robbed, then isn’t ot possible to make the assertion that Trump believes that he’s the one defending democracy? 

There are certainly other questions that would raise about Trump if he believes the election was stolen despite all the evidence to the contrary. But if he genuinely believes it, his actions are plausible in my estimation. 
 

That's what the courts are for.  And he lost there

 

[moleculo]

Direct Headline: Georgia Havoc Raises New Doubts on Pricey Voting Machines

By Nick Corasaniti and Stephanie Saul June 11, 2020

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/11/us/politics/georgia-voting-machines.html

Direct Headline: Georgia’s June primary raised concerns about Dominion

By Staff Reports December 3, 2020

https://www.dailyadvocate.com/2020/12/03/georgias-june-primary-raised-concerns-about-dominion/

*****

You know what will end up a good "defense" for Trump?

Stacey Abrams own political arm, the Fair Fight Action group ( already accused of openly skirting campaign finance laws and intentionally making a mockery of the IRS to boot) has always been financially aligned to Georgia's Coalition For Good Governance.

CGG has openly labeled, on public record, DVS as “unauditable" and "unconstitutional.”  CGG's head Marilyn Marks is on record saying DVS is a system built on "a game of who can rig the system the best.”

The more prominent the discussion of the Georgia battleground gets deep dived, the greater the pathway for Trump to say "I don't trust the results of Dominion, why should I and why is that a problem when POTUS candidate and Democrat Stacey Abrams feels the exact same way?"

Thus he believes he won the 2020 election. Thus you can't show specific intent, thus the obstruction charge washes away, thus you can't convict him, thus he is free to run for POTUS in 2024.

Team Blue brought this onto themselves. The only reason this isn't getting wide coverage is because the majority of the activist complicit MSM leans hard left.

LOGICAL FALLACY: Argumentum Ad Populum

Argumentum ad populum (Latin for "argument to the people") is a logical fallacy that occurs when something is considered to be true or good solely because it is popular. Undoubtedly many popular notions are true, but their truth is not a function of their popularity, except in circumstances where other factors ensure that popularity is related to truth. The fallacy is the opposite of an appeal to the minority....The fallacy is an appeal to authority and a conditional fallacy.

"Everyone does it!"

This logical fallacy is often used by children as an excuse for wanting something (everybody's got one) or getting into mischief (everybody's doing it). Despite the juvenile nature of the argument, it is often used by people who should know better, particularly by those who are trying to force other people to their way of thinking.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

******

Just because Stacey Abrams and others have protested Dominion machines, Trump doesn't have carte Blanche to not trust results he doesn't like without evidence.

 

[Godsbrother]

Well there were some rule changes in certain states, correct?  What about PA?  I’m not saying the election was stolen, don’t get me wrong.

If you are talking about PA ACT 77 then this was something spearheaded by Republicans and signed into law in 2019.  It was in effect for the 2020 primaries with zero complaints from either side.   It only became a problem for Republicans after Trump lost (interestingly they did not have a problem with the change for other races, just the presidential election).

So it is pretty amusing that the law they proposed and pushed to get enacted is the same one they wanted to get ruled unconstitutional after Trump lost. 

You can't make this up.

 

[Godsbrother]

I don't know if there is evidence that Trump was involved in the scheme to set up fake electors but if he did then wouldn't that make him guilty of election fraud?

 

[Amused to Death]

I don't know if there is evidence that Trump was involved in the scheme to set up fake electors but if he did then wouldn't that make him guilty of election fraud?

IMO, the three most egregious things about the attempt to overturn the 2020 election are the fake electors, the sitting president trying to coerce the VP into violating the Constitution, and the sitting president trying to coerce the GA Secretary of State into committing election fraud (find me just enough votes to win your state).

The riot is secondary, but those who entered the building should be prosecuted obviously.

 

[roadkill1292]

IMO, the three most egregious things about the attempt to overturn the 2020 election are the fake electors, the sitting president trying to coerce the VP into violating the Constitution, and the sitting president trying to coerce the GA Secretary of State into committing election fraud (find me just enough votes to win your state).

The riot is secondary, but those who entered the building should be prosecuted obviously.

All of these are very important indeed. I would add a couple more, all of which are currently unproven.

Did the sitting president coordinate in advance with leaders of the protests? And did the sitting president deliberately refuse to stop the occupation in the hope that the electoral certification process would be interrupted and give him avenues to remaining in office beyond January 20?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Whether it's wrong to attempt an illegal coup in order to destroy democracy seems like a subjective judgment call. Who's to say?

The winners of course. 

 

[Godsbrother]

My question to the OP and Trump supporters is this:  Is Trump wrong if he knows the election was not stolen?

 

[apalmer]

Well of course someone disagrees with it.  Look, I don’t profess to understand any of this.  But it is a peer reviewed study and is set to appear in a reputable journal.  The only thing I’m saying is this - I’m not prepared to trust the media when they say there was no voter fraud.  Why?  Because I know they aren’t investigating it, because they don’t want to find it.  This is the same media that pimped the Russian collusion crap and said the Hunter laptop was Russian disinformation.  That’s where we are at.  People no longer trust our institutions, and people believe what they want to believe.  The truth dies in darkness, and we are in dark times.

The media? What about the courts? 60 judges (many of them appointed by Trump himself) said Trump's attorneys had no evidence of fraud. What about investigations by the states themselves? Every one of the states in controversy did recounts and/or "forensic investigations", most of them more than once, and found no evidence of fraud. Many of those states (PA, AZ, GA come to mind) are controlled by Republican legislatures who were very eager to spend tax dollars to investigate, but still couldn't come up with any evidence of fraud. In PA the current GOP candidate for Governor led the charge; there were headlines when he approved spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on a "forensic review" of the voting trying to prove fraud.  It's now been over a year since he did that and he has not yet released one word about the results.  The only plausible reason for his silence is that they found nothing, just like they did in AZ, GA, MI, NV and everywhere else.  Don't fall into the "it's the biased media" trap that Trump keeps throwing out. If Trump's people can't find any facts to support themselves, maybe, just maybe it's because there was no fraud. The reason people don't trust our institutions is because of people like Trump lying about those institutions. If you repeat a lie long enough and loud enough, some people are going to believe it. That doesn't make it true and it doesn't justify ignoring the truth.

 

[Amused to Death]

The reason people don't trust our institutions is because of people like Trump lying about those institutions. If you repeat a lie long enough and loud enough, some people are going to believe it. That doesn't make it true and it doesn't justify ignoring the truth.

And now the Texas GOP has included a plank in their platform that the 2020 election was illegitimate and Biden is only the "acting" President. Talk about damaging our elections! No one has done more damage than Donald Trump.

 

[ekbeats]

The media? What about the courts? 60 judges (many of them appointed by Trump himself) said Trump's attorneys had no evidence of fraud. What about investigations by the states themselves? Every one of the states in controversy did recounts and/or "forensic investigations", most of them more than once, and found no evidence of fraud. Many of those states (PA, AZ, GA come to mind) are controlled by Republican legislatures who were very eager to spend tax dollars to investigate, but still couldn't come up with any evidence of fraud. In PA the current GOP candidate for Governor led the charge; there were headlines when he approved spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on a "forensic review" of the voting trying to prove fraud.  It's now been over a year since he did that and he has not yet released one word about the results.  The only plausible reason for his silence is that they found nothing, just like they did in AZ, GA, MI, NV and everywhere else.  Don't fall into the "it's the biased media" trap that Trump keeps throwing out. If Trump's people can't find any facts to support themselves, maybe, just maybe it's because there was no fraud. The reason people don't trust our institutions is because of people like Trump lying about those institutions. If you repeat a lie long enough and loud enough, some people are going to believe it. That doesn't make it true and it doesn't justify ignoring the truth.

Good post.  Appreciate the info.  

 

[Godsbrother]

And now the Texas GOP has included a plank in their platform that the 2020 election was illegitimate and Biden is only the "acting" President. Talk about damaging our elections! No one has done more damage than Donald Trump.

The saddest part about this whole fiasco is that it was accomplished without providing a single piece of proof.   

Prior to 2020 I would have never have believed that so many Americans could be misled so easily without asking for evidence.   

 

[Amused to Death]

The saddest part about this whole fiasco is that it was accomplished without providing a single piece of proof.   

Prior to 2020 I would have never have believed that so many Americans could be misled so easily without asking for evidence.   

Sad, really. But hey, please make another donation to the "election defense fund"! Act now for 5x match!

 

[Godsbrother]

Sad, really. But hey, please make another donation to the "election defense fund"! Act now for 5x match!

For some reason my email was attached to my brother who is a member of GOP and I am still getting these emails daily asking for donations to stop the steal with up to 6x matching donations.   They keep doing it so there must be people still be stupid enough to fall for the con.

 

[The General]

My question to the OP and Trump supporters is this:  Is Trump wrong if he knows the election was not stolen?

 

[T J]

My question to the OP and Trump supporters is this:  Is Trump wrong if he knows the election was not stolen?

Of course he is. 100%. I don’t like Trump and hope he doesn’t run again. I’m liking DeSantis quite a bit though. But if I had to vote for Trump or 4 more years of democrats in charge? Give me Trump 100 times out of a 100. 

 

[Godsbrother]

Of course he is. 100%. I don’t like Trump and hope he doesn’t run again. I’m liking DeSantis quite a bit though. But if I had to vote for Trump or 4 more years of democrats in charge? Give me Trump 100 times out of a 100. 

This is what I don't get.   You would vote for a person that repeatedly lies about a stolen election and tried by various ways to circumvent the constitution of the United States and the will of the American people?   Whether or not you believe Jan 6 was an insurrection the fact is Trump had people so riled up over this stolen election BS that we had American citizens attacking the US Capitol in an effort to halt the certification of a presidential election.  This is unprecedented in American history.

Like I said in another thread, this country has survived many perils and times of difficulties including years when democrats were "in charge" but a democracy cannot survive leaders that will lie and cheat to remain in power.   There are legal ways to challenge the results of the election, you can't just claim fraud and not have to prove it.

I could never vote for a person like that no matter what party they were running for or who they were running against.   It is amazing to me that people put party over the constitution and laws of the US but thanks for answering honestly.

 

[The Commish]

This is what I don't get.   You would vote for a person that repeatedly lies about a stolen election and tried by various ways to circumvent the constitution of the United States and the will of the American people?   Whether or not you believe Jan 6 was an insurrection the fact is Trump had people so riled up over this stolen election BS that we had American citizens attacking the US Capitol in an effort to halt the certification of a presidential election.  This is unprecedented in American history.

Like I said in another thread, this country has survived many perils and times of difficulties including years when democrats were "in charge" but a democracy cannot survive leaders that will lie and cheat to remain in power.   There are legal ways to challenge the results of the election, you can't just claim fraud and not have to prove it.

I could never vote for a person like that no matter what party they were running for or who they were running against.   It is amazing to me that people put party over the constitution and laws of the US but thanks for answering honestly.

That's what "party over country" looks like  

 

[Long Ball Larry]

The media? What about the courts? 60 judges (many of them appointed by Trump himself) said Trump's attorneys had no evidence of fraud. What about investigations by the states themselves? Every one of the states in controversy did recounts and/or "forensic investigations", most of them more than once, and found no evidence of fraud. 

They had lots of hearsay and conjecture.  Those are kinds of evidence.

 

[apalmer]

They had lots of hearsay and conjecture.  Those are kinds of evidence.

I hope that's supposed to be sarcasm.

 

[roadkill1292]

That's what "party over country" looks like  

Indeed, it's what we're seeing from increasing numbers on the right. That power is worth circumventing democratic processes.

A lot of them have given up on the time honored tradition of persuasion. Which healthy democracies require.

 

[Amused to Death]

Of course he is. 100%. I don’t like Trump and hope he doesn’t run again. I’m liking DeSantis quite a bit though. But if I had to vote for Trump or 4 more years of democrats in charge? Give me Trump 100 times out of a 100. 

I find it sad that Trump could very well be the GOP candidate for you to have the option to vote for him.

 

[Godsbrother]

I think at this point many Americans believe that the ends justifies the means.  It doesn't matter how you get the power as long as you achieve it and hold onto it, by all means possible.   

Nothing else matters.

 

[FairWarning]

I think at this point many Americans believe that the ends justifies the means.  It doesn't matter how you get the power as long as you achieve it and hold onto it, by all means possible.   

Nothing else matters.

This was the last two elections in a nutshell.  It’s an awful trend that needs to stop.