7 ms·

They have a voice. They have a congressional representative, two senators, and a vote in the presidential election. What they do not have, and will never have

They have a voice. They have a congressional representative, two senators, and a vote in the presidential election. What they do not have, and will never have in the USA, is the right to overturn an election they lost with violent force.

Nuzzerino 6y ago
Where was their voice in court when the courts refused to hear the election case at all on its merits?
- unethical_ban 6y ago
  You don't get to sue claiming fraud, then say "Well I don't know, check on it". What are you going on about?
  - Nuzzerino 6y ago
    I've read the GA and PA lawsuits in full, and was on the conference call to hear the PA court arguments for the motion to dismiss. Your take on it is not even remotely accurate. There was plenty of evidence, but it's apparently a thought crime to say so. If there was nothing to hide there wouldn't be a need to censor it.
    - unethical_ban 6y ago
      "Uh huh" "Nuh uh" "Uh huh" I too saw (clips of) several of these lawsuits, where Trump advocates were threatened with contempt and finally admitted a complete lack of evidence for claims of fraud. I also know that elections officials across the country, from both parties, assert there is no evidence of fraud in a systemic manner or in any manner that would change the results of the election. I also know that the GOP leader of the Senate, the GOP lap-dog Attorney General, and the US intelligence community are in agreement that there is no evidence of the fraud alleged. https://wannabewonk.com/wannabe-coup/ https://wannabewonk.com/wannabe-coup/ In short, the facts you linked to (ha) don't align with how the legal system works, common sense, or reality.
    - ahiknsr 6y ago
      > There was plenty of evidence, but it's apparently a thought crime to say so. Can you please share some credible evidence?
      - Nuzzerino 6y ago
        Only if your definition of "credible" doesn't coincide with the side you happen to agree with.
        pbourke 6y ago
        So that’s a no?
        Nuzzerino 6y ago
        https://hereistheevidence.com/ https://hereistheevidence.com/ Maybe some of this stuff is debunked but they try to catalog it here.
        jonwithoutanh 6y ago
        so no?
    - toast0 6y ago
      If the claim is the courts weren't willing to hear the evidence, then why not share this compelling evidence in the court of public opinion? All I've heard is claims that there is evidence, none of which has been shared. Or when it has been shared is not compelling.
- brazzy 6y ago
  Their voice was claiming there were cases with merits. There weren't.
- standardUser 6y ago
  Dozens of judges across half a dozen states, many of whom were appointed by Republicans and some even by Donald Trump himself, looked at the cases brought by Trump and Co. and handled them as they saw professionally fit. That is the job of judges. I'm not sure what more "voice" is expected to be given.
- walshemj 6y ago
  Exactly what merit would this be based on?
- croon 6y ago
  The cases had no merit, is the many times over proven fact. Having a voice doesn't mean anything you say is cemented truth. Having a voice means you can file a suit. It is either heard or thrown out based on merit. His own appointed judges weren't part of the "deep state" when they threw the cases out.
Judgmentality 6y ago
You're not wrong, but you're missing the point. So long as those people feel that they don't have a voice, they will earnestly believe they are victims of an oppressive dictatorship. From their perspective, they're fighting for liberty the same as the Boston Tea Party did way back when.
- majormajor 6y ago
  Their perspective is the result of people lying to them for personal power and profit for years. Blame those people, not the people trying to figure out maybe-too-late how to stop their victims from burning the whole country down.
  - Judgmentality 6y ago
    I wasn't blaming anybody for anything. I'm trying to provide some perspective to help understand the problem, instead of immediately cast blame. Honestly, your knee-jerk reaction is part of the problem.
    - majormajor 6y ago
      Why do you think it's a knee-jerk reaction? This has been happening for decades and I've been worried about it for decades... and I'm worried I wasn't pessimistic enough. Why aren't you blaming anyone for anything? Do you not think what's happening is bad?
      - Judgmentality 6y ago
        It's a knee-jerk reaction because my comment said nothing about blame, and your response was entirely about who to blame.
        majormajor 6y ago
        Ah, I see, I view it as on-topic for the thread, though, since the thread-starting post from 'lettergram put blame on Twitter, etc, for the feelings of these potential protestors.
linuxftw 6y ago
BLM had all these same things, why wasn't that enough for them?
- unethical_ban 6y ago
  Ah, another hot take that a summer of protests, mostly peaceful and at times violent, happening across the country against a history of government agents killing and abusing (mostly) minorities, is the same as a group of conspiracy theorists rallying together at the behest of the lame-duck president to invade the capitol building during a session of Congress to certify the results of a fair election. If we're whatabouting, the capitol-invaders got off mostly scot-free in the moment, compared to hundreds of more-peaceful protesters who were maced, beaten and detained by cops for much less. https://www.good.is/stop-equating-trumps-capitol-insurrection-to-black-lives-matter-protests https://www.good.is/stop-equating-trumps-capitol-insurrectio... https://wannabewonk.com/coup-part-two/ https://wannabewonk.com/coup-part-two/
  - linuxftw 6y ago
    This entire post is about protesting.... so? It was a rhetorical question, meaning that sometimes 'representation' is really not representation at all, and not a comment on BLM. In fact, I agree with much of what BLM is protesting for.
    - unethical_ban 6y ago
      Yes, all protest at some level is about anger over government action/inaction, a direct voice of the people when they feel unheard. But the first "capitol defender" u/lettergram was suggesting that Trump should have his Twitter back to abuse reality, so his loyalists will feel heard. The person you responded to was making the point that these people can be heard, and have been heard. Their point is invalid. I don't think we disagree as much as it seems. Postscript: Check that first link to see why I got rebuttal-happy when you compared it to BLM. A lot of bad-faith or otherwise ignorant actors are trying to draw false equivalence to the movements/actions, and the narrative needs to be challenged.
ordinaryradical 6y ago
They also have a majority in the Supreme Court. It’s such an idiotic argument because it’s obvious they have a voice and significant representation at the state and federal level. 75 million of them voted their congresspeople in and now because they lost the presidency we have to tiptoe around their feelings while they foment an insurrection? What?
- mod 6y ago
  Part of the threat to them was the potential loss of the court, as well, with the "pack the court" talk. /r/politics, prior to the election, was in a fervor about how this might be the last "true election" of their lifetime. That they would forever lose their voice, etc. Have their rights stripped. It's not so wild that the people on the other side would feel the same way, especially when the talk was literally about taking away the ability for Republicans to control any branches and "making sure this can never happen again." Besides packing the court, other ideas to accomplish that included redistricting, mandatory voting, and adding some left-leaning territories as states.
  - ordinaryradical 6y ago
    The r/politics crowd spouting that crap are also fools, just a left wing variant. The extremes have to convince you “everything lies in the balance” to get you to go along with their kookery. We should indulge neither end of the spectrum with foolish talk or justifications of their outlandish theories and feelings of (unjustified) grievance and fear.
  - bilbo0s 6y ago
    Are any of those things unconstitutional? If so, take it to court. If not, then suck it up. I'm tired of apologizing for my country to every group with a grievance and a camera. Especially when they all invariably claim to be loyal citizens and patriots. Now along comes an aggrieved group that wants even more than my apology, they want me to give up my constitutional order. How 'bout NO. That attack at the Capitol has put me over the top. You want change? Vote like everyone else and accept the outcome. It's time to stop coddling these people.

Nuzzerino 6y ago

Where was their voice in court when the courts refused to hear the election case at all on its merits?

unethical_ban 6y ago
You don't get to sue claiming fraud, then say "Well I don't know, check on it". What are you going on about?
- Nuzzerino 6y ago
  I've read the GA and PA lawsuits in full, and was on the conference call to hear the PA court arguments for the motion to dismiss. Your take on it is not even remotely accurate. There was plenty of evidence, but it's apparently a thought crime to say so. If there was nothing to hide there wouldn't be a need to censor it.
  - unethical_ban 6y ago
    "Uh huh" "Nuh uh" "Uh huh" I too saw (clips of) several of these lawsuits, where Trump advocates were threatened with contempt and finally admitted a complete lack of evidence for claims of fraud. I also know that elections officials across the country, from both parties, assert there is no evidence of fraud in a systemic manner or in any manner that would change the results of the election. I also know that the GOP leader of the Senate, the GOP lap-dog Attorney General, and the US intelligence community are in agreement that there is no evidence of the fraud alleged. https://wannabewonk.com/wannabe-coup/ https://wannabewonk.com/wannabe-coup/ In short, the facts you linked to (ha) don't align with how the legal system works, common sense, or reality.
  - ahiknsr 6y ago
    > There was plenty of evidence, but it's apparently a thought crime to say so. Can you please share some credible evidence?
    - Nuzzerino 6y ago
      Only if your definition of "credible" doesn't coincide with the side you happen to agree with.
      - pbourke 6y ago
        So that’s a no?
        Nuzzerino 6y ago
        https://hereistheevidence.com/ https://hereistheevidence.com/ Maybe some of this stuff is debunked but they try to catalog it here.
      - jonwithoutanh 6y ago
        so no?
  - toast0 6y ago
    If the claim is the courts weren't willing to hear the evidence, then why not share this compelling evidence in the court of public opinion? All I've heard is claims that there is evidence, none of which has been shared. Or when it has been shared is not compelling.
brazzy 6y ago
Their voice was claiming there were cases with merits. There weren't.
standardUser 6y ago
Dozens of judges across half a dozen states, many of whom were appointed by Republicans and some even by Donald Trump himself, looked at the cases brought by Trump and Co. and handled them as they saw professionally fit. That is the job of judges. I'm not sure what more "voice" is expected to be given.
walshemj 6y ago
Exactly what merit would this be based on?
croon 6y ago
The cases had no merit, is the many times over proven fact. Having a voice doesn't mean anything you say is cemented truth. Having a voice means you can file a suit. It is either heard or thrown out based on merit. His own appointed judges weren't part of the "deep state" when they threw the cases out.

Judgmentality 6y ago

You're not wrong, but you're missing the point. So long as those people feel that they don't have a voice, they will earnestly believe they are victims of an oppressive dictatorship. From their perspective, they're fighting for liberty the same as the Boston Tea Party did way back when.

majormajor 6y ago
Their perspective is the result of people lying to them for personal power and profit for years. Blame those people, not the people trying to figure out maybe-too-late how to stop their victims from burning the whole country down.
- Judgmentality 6y ago
  I wasn't blaming anybody for anything. I'm trying to provide some perspective to help understand the problem, instead of immediately cast blame. Honestly, your knee-jerk reaction is part of the problem.
  - majormajor 6y ago
    Why do you think it's a knee-jerk reaction? This has been happening for decades and I've been worried about it for decades... and I'm worried I wasn't pessimistic enough. Why aren't you blaming anyone for anything? Do you not think what's happening is bad?
    - Judgmentality 6y ago
      It's a knee-jerk reaction because my comment said nothing about blame, and your response was entirely about who to blame.
      - majormajor 6y ago
        Ah, I see, I view it as on-topic for the thread, though, since the thread-starting post from 'lettergram put blame on Twitter, etc, for the feelings of these potential protestors.

linuxftw 6y ago

BLM had all these same things, why wasn't that enough for them?

unethical_ban 6y ago
Ah, another hot take that a summer of protests, mostly peaceful and at times violent, happening across the country against a history of government agents killing and abusing (mostly) minorities, is the same as a group of conspiracy theorists rallying together at the behest of the lame-duck president to invade the capitol building during a session of Congress to certify the results of a fair election. If we're whatabouting, the capitol-invaders got off mostly scot-free in the moment, compared to hundreds of more-peaceful protesters who were maced, beaten and detained by cops for much less. https://www.good.is/stop-equating-trumps-capitol-insurrection-to-black-lives-matter-protests https://www.good.is/stop-equating-trumps-capitol-insurrectio... https://wannabewonk.com/coup-part-two/ https://wannabewonk.com/coup-part-two/
- linuxftw 6y ago
  This entire post is about protesting.... so? It was a rhetorical question, meaning that sometimes 'representation' is really not representation at all, and not a comment on BLM. In fact, I agree with much of what BLM is protesting for.
  - unethical_ban 6y ago
    Yes, all protest at some level is about anger over government action/inaction, a direct voice of the people when they feel unheard. But the first "capitol defender" u/lettergram was suggesting that Trump should have his Twitter back to abuse reality, so his loyalists will feel heard. The person you responded to was making the point that these people can be heard, and have been heard. Their point is invalid. I don't think we disagree as much as it seems. Postscript: Check that first link to see why I got rebuttal-happy when you compared it to BLM. A lot of bad-faith or otherwise ignorant actors are trying to draw false equivalence to the movements/actions, and the narrative needs to be challenged.

ordinaryradical 6y ago

They also have a majority in the Supreme Court. It’s such an idiotic argument because it’s obvious they have a voice and significant representation at the state and federal level. 75 million of them voted their congresspeople in and now because they lost the presidency we have to tiptoe around their feelings while they foment an insurrection? What?

mod 6y ago
Part of the threat to them was the potential loss of the court, as well, with the "pack the court" talk. /r/politics, prior to the election, was in a fervor about how this might be the last "true election" of their lifetime. That they would forever lose their voice, etc. Have their rights stripped. It's not so wild that the people on the other side would feel the same way, especially when the talk was literally about taking away the ability for Republicans to control any branches and "making sure this can never happen again." Besides packing the court, other ideas to accomplish that included redistricting, mandatory voting, and adding some left-leaning territories as states.
- ordinaryradical 6y ago
  The r/politics crowd spouting that crap are also fools, just a left wing variant. The extremes have to convince you “everything lies in the balance” to get you to go along with their kookery. We should indulge neither end of the spectrum with foolish talk or justifications of their outlandish theories and feelings of (unjustified) grievance and fear.
- bilbo0s 6y ago
  Are any of those things unconstitutional? If so, take it to court. If not, then suck it up. I'm tired of apologizing for my country to every group with a grievance and a camera. Especially when they all invariably claim to be loyal citizens and patriots. Now along comes an aggrieved group that wants even more than my apology, they want me to give up my constitutional order. How 'bout NO. That attack at the Capitol has put me over the top. You want change? Vote like everyone else and accept the outcome. It's time to stop coddling these people.