3 ms·

> You're once again ignoring all of the actions taken behind the scenes, which I've mentioned before - why are you ignoring it again? Because it was about taki

by proc0 2y ago

> You're once again ignoring all of the actions taken behind the scenes, which I've mentioned before - why are you ignoring it again? Because it was about taking the available legal paths, and going into the details of that is already stretching the definition of insurrection. It could be a bad faith attempt at bending the rules, but that is still within the bounds of the system. Also every president will appoint judges that are favorable to their side, all the other presidents did the same. The larger coordination that you mention is mostly due to a combination of two things. Trust in the institutions is extremely low, and Trump has been running on narrative of being the victim of those who represent those institutions (aka the establishment). This motivates large unstructured groups that can only coordinate indirectly (through action/reaction), and since they all share the same perspective it might seem more coordinated than it is. In short I see dirty politics and bending the rules on both sides creating a vicious cycle. Trump won 2016 unexpectedly by doubling down on bad rhetoric, then the Democrats and media thought he deserved to be relentlessly attacked along with his supporters for four years (for saying mean things, or saying the wrong things). This incentivized his supporters to go along with Trump's attempt at bending the rules and causing a riot over losing the election, which then made Democrats throw the entire book at him with all kinds of charges, which inevitably looks like they are going after him for political reasons, cementing the narrative that the establishment is corrupt (whether or not it is, it creates the perception). Hopefully it's not too late for each side to reflect on how they contributed to this cycle. Whoever wins in November isn't going to end the country, unless people actually believe it and that creates a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Timon3 2y ago
Has any sitting president before Trump tried to abuse this loophole to stay in power? You're acting like this is all regular business, like it's just what presidents do. It doesn't matter whether the stacked courts could have interpreted the rules to make this loophole legal. Trump attempted to overturn an election and keep power. This is not a "both sides" issue, this is one side not holding their leaders accountable and attempting to end democracy to stay in power. But feel free to prove me wrong - you could for example show me concrete steps taken by Obama to keep the presidency for the Democrats in 2016, maybe some fake electors he sent to the counting. I don't think such examples exist, but I might be wrong.
- proc0 2y ago
  1960 > Kennedy eventually was declared the winner in the Hawaii recount by 115 votes, but the two sets of certifications were waiting when the joint session of Congress convened. Democrats, including Rep. Daniel K. Inouye, were ready to lodge an objection if the GOP slate was counted, but the presiding officer — the Senate president, who also is the vice president: i.e., Nixon — pushed the issue aside. 2000 > Nixon wasn’t the first vice president who had to preside over the opening of electoral votes that declared his opponent the winner, and he wasn’t the last. The most recent was Al Gore, who had conceded the 2000 election after the Supreme Court stopped a recount in Florida, effectively handing the state’s electoral votes, and the presidency, to George W. Bush. I think those were the precedents that were used in 2020. There are definitely good reasons to think they are not good parallels to 2020, however the context of this entire conversation is how Trump incited an insurrection, which I think is overblown given that he was exploring his legal paths available like a few other instances in the past. Let's say he's still wrong, but it wasn't a "threat to democracy". https://rollcall.com/2020/10/26/we-the-people-what-happens-when-a-state-cant-decide-on-its-electors/ https://rollcall.com/2020/10/26/we-the-people-what-happens-w...
  - Timon3 2y ago
    > There are definitely good reasons to think they are not good parallels to 2020, however the context of this entire conversation is how Trump incited an insurrection, which I think is overblown given that he was exploring his legal paths available like a few other instances in the past. Let's say he's still wrong, but it wasn't a "threat to democracy". What is a bigger threat to democracy than a sitting president overturning an election and staying in power? Again, you're acting like it's totally normal for a president to abuse loopholes for this purpose. It's literally the end of democracy, because the government is no longer democratically elected. I don't understand why you keep arguing against that point. A democracy only stays a democracy when election results are followed. Trump tried to stay in power even though he lost. Had he succeeded, democracy would have ended. You were incredibly close to that happening. It was only individuals, possibly only one, that kept your democracy alive - all else had failed.

by proc0 2y ago

Timon3 2y ago

Has any sitting president before Trump tried to abuse this loophole to stay in power? You're acting like this is all regular business, like it's just what presidents do. It doesn't matter whether the stacked courts could have interpreted the rules to make this loophole legal. Trump attempted to overturn an election and keep power. This is not a "both sides" issue, this is one side not holding their leaders accountable and attempting to end democracy to stay in power. But feel free to prove me wrong - you could for example show me concrete steps taken by Obama to keep the presidency for the Democrats in 2016, maybe some fake electors he sent to the counting. I don't think such examples exist, but I might be wrong.

proc0 2y ago
1960 > Kennedy eventually was declared the winner in the Hawaii recount by 115 votes, but the two sets of certifications were waiting when the joint session of Congress convened. Democrats, including Rep. Daniel K. Inouye, were ready to lodge an objection if the GOP slate was counted, but the presiding officer — the Senate president, who also is the vice president: i.e., Nixon — pushed the issue aside. 2000 > Nixon wasn’t the first vice president who had to preside over the opening of electoral votes that declared his opponent the winner, and he wasn’t the last. The most recent was Al Gore, who had conceded the 2000 election after the Supreme Court stopped a recount in Florida, effectively handing the state’s electoral votes, and the presidency, to George W. Bush. I think those were the precedents that were used in 2020. There are definitely good reasons to think they are not good parallels to 2020, however the context of this entire conversation is how Trump incited an insurrection, which I think is overblown given that he was exploring his legal paths available like a few other instances in the past. Let's say he's still wrong, but it wasn't a "threat to democracy". https://rollcall.com/2020/10/26/we-the-people-what-happens-when-a-state-cant-decide-on-its-electors/ https://rollcall.com/2020/10/26/we-the-people-what-happens-w...
- Timon3 2y ago
  > There are definitely good reasons to think they are not good parallels to 2020, however the context of this entire conversation is how Trump incited an insurrection, which I think is overblown given that he was exploring his legal paths available like a few other instances in the past. Let's say he's still wrong, but it wasn't a "threat to democracy". What is a bigger threat to democracy than a sitting president overturning an election and staying in power? Again, you're acting like it's totally normal for a president to abuse loopholes for this purpose. It's literally the end of democracy, because the government is no longer democratically elected. I don't understand why you keep arguing against that point. A democracy only stays a democracy when election results are followed. Trump tried to stay in power even though he lost. Had he succeeded, democracy would have ended. You were incredibly close to that happening. It was only individuals, possibly only one, that kept your democracy alive - all else had failed.