Trump himself consents to transition
-
@horace said in Trump himself consents to transition:
@xenon said in Trump himself consents to transition:
@horace said in Trump himself consents to transition:
@xenon said in Trump himself consents to transition:
@horace said in Trump himself consents to transition:
@xenon said in Trump himself consents to transition:
Trump is different. He wants to change the results based on bullshit and 10’s of millions of people agree with him and believe the bullshit.
10s of millions of people would have rejoiced had the faithless electors succeeded. I figure they had as much of a chance as Trump does with his hopes of overturning the results. It’s not different.
If that happened, and 10’s of millions of people were on board - then we’d be in the same situation as right now.
I get it. Fucking around with faithfulness of electors is fine and dandy as long as it’s legal. Now name something Trump has done in his crusade that’s illegal.
I don’t think anything. He’s acting like a person with the intelligence of a teenager. He declared victory on election night while the votes were still being counted.
People trust voting less now than they would have before this. That’s bad. That’s a real effect.
Not everything that’s bad is illegal.
Right. I wish Trump would concede gracefully. And I wish TDS didn’t produce a brain chemistry capable off shrugging of faithless electors who happen to hate Trump.
Democracy is so strong in this country that literally nobody cares what Trump is doing except those that don’t know how to have a conversation without Trump in it.
-
@horace said in Trump himself consents to transition:
@xenon so you’re just positing as an obvious truism that Trump’s complaints of voter fraud, which will prove ineffective, pose a meaningful threat to something or other, and more meaningful than electors screwing around with their faithfulness to their electorate?
No - the legacy of the faithless electors will be a historical curiosity. The legacy of Trump’s election fraud nonsense will be a significant portion of the electorate trusting election results much less.
He won’t turn over the presidency, but the effect of that loss of trust is TBD
As I said, matter of degrees. It’s not binary. (Effect or no practical effect. )
-
@xenon said in Trump himself consents to transition:
@horace said in Trump himself consents to transition:
@xenon so you’re just positing as an obvious truism that Trump’s complaints of voter fraud, which will prove ineffective, pose a meaningful threat to something or other, and more meaningful than electors screwing around with their faithfulness to their electorate?
No - the legacy of the faithless electors will be a historical curiosity. The legacy of Trump’s election fraud nonsense will be a significant portion of the electorate trusting election results much less.
He won’t turn over the presidency, but the effect of that loss of trust is TBD
As I said, matter of degrees. It’s not binary. (Effect or no practical effect. )
Your first paragraph would have been a more coherent response to my question if the first word was “yes” rather than “no”.
-
@xenon said in Trump himself consents to transition:
@horace said in Trump himself consents to transition:
@xenon so you’re just positing as an obvious truism that Trump’s complaints of voter fraud, which will prove ineffective, pose a meaningful threat to something or other, and more meaningful than electors screwing around with their faithfulness to their electorate?
No - the legacy of the faithless electors will be a historical curiosity. The legacy of Trump’s election fraud nonsense will be a significant portion of the electorate trusting election results much less.
He won’t turn over the presidency, but the effect of that loss of trust is TBD
As I said, matter of degrees. It’s not binary. (Effect or no practical effect. )
But actually it’s the 50 different ways you can vote that is the issue and all the states jerking all the rules. If people can return to vote in person on the one day that matters and not months before that would be great. Wait that’s too hard for people.
-
@horace said in Trump himself consents to transition:
@xenon said in Trump himself consents to transition:
@horace said in Trump himself consents to transition:
@xenon so you’re just positing as an obvious truism that Trump’s complaints of voter fraud, which will prove ineffective, pose a meaningful threat to something or other, and more meaningful than electors screwing around with their faithfulness to their electorate?
No - the legacy of the faithless electors will be a historical curiosity. The legacy of Trump’s election fraud nonsense will be a significant portion of the electorate trusting election results much less.
He won’t turn over the presidency, but the effect of that loss of trust is TBD
As I said, matter of degrees. It’s not binary. (Effect or no practical effect. )
Your first paragraph would have been a more coherent response to my question if the first word was “yes” rather than “no”.
So you’re saying there will be no lingering effect from people trusting elections less? I disagree. (You could be right) I don’t see how that’s a matter of coherence
-
@xenon said in Trump himself consents to transition:
@horace said in Trump himself consents to transition:
@xenon said in Trump himself consents to transition:
@horace said in Trump himself consents to transition:
@xenon so you’re just positing as an obvious truism that Trump’s complaints of voter fraud, which will prove ineffective, pose a meaningful threat to something or other, and more meaningful than electors screwing around with their faithfulness to their electorate?
No - the legacy of the faithless electors will be a historical curiosity. The legacy of Trump’s election fraud nonsense will be a significant portion of the electorate trusting election results much less.
He won’t turn over the presidency, but the effect of that loss of trust is TBD
As I said, matter of degrees. It’s not binary. (Effect or no practical effect. )
Your first paragraph would have been a more coherent response to my question if the first word was “yes” rather than “no”.
So you’re saying there will be no lingering effect from people trusting elections less? I disagree. (You could be right) I don’t see how that’s a matter of coherence
You are positing as an obvious truism that Trump’s crusade about election fraud is a bigger deal than electors attempting to use faithlessness to express outrage at the election of Donald Trump. The binary of effect or no effect are your words, not mine.
-
@horace said in Trump himself consents to transition:
@xenon said in Trump himself consents to transition:
@horace said in Trump himself consents to transition:
@xenon said in Trump himself consents to transition:
@horace said in Trump himself consents to transition:
@xenon so you’re just positing as an obvious truism that Trump’s complaints of voter fraud, which will prove ineffective, pose a meaningful threat to something or other, and more meaningful than electors screwing around with their faithfulness to their electorate?
No - the legacy of the faithless electors will be a historical curiosity. The legacy of Trump’s election fraud nonsense will be a significant portion of the electorate trusting election results much less.
He won’t turn over the presidency, but the effect of that loss of trust is TBD
As I said, matter of degrees. It’s not binary. (Effect or no practical effect. )
Your first paragraph would have been a more coherent response to my question if the first word was “yes” rather than “no”.
So you’re saying there will be no lingering effect from people trusting elections less? I disagree. (You could be right) I don’t see how that’s a matter of coherence
You are positing as an obvious truism that Trump’s crusade about election fraud is a bigger deal than electors attempting to use faithlessness to express outrage at the election of Donald Trump. The binary of effect or no effect are your words, not mine.
States can get rid of faithless electors in law if they want. You can’t get rid of election trutherism with any rule or law changes.
It’s not a truism - I have a rationale for why one is different than the other.
-
@copper said in Trump himself consents to transition:
The whole dispute has been very much open and in public.
If no, or only minor, problems are found, what's not to trust?
Ask Jolly or Larry. Jolly has said multiple times that 50,000,000 Americans think the election was stolen.
-
@xenon said in Trump himself consents to transition:
@horace said in Trump himself consents to transition:
@xenon said in Trump himself consents to transition:
@horace said in Trump himself consents to transition:
@xenon said in Trump himself consents to transition:
Trump is different. He wants to change the results based on bullshit and 10’s of millions of people agree with him and believe the bullshit.
10s of millions of people would have rejoiced had the faithless electors succeeded. I figure they had as much of a chance as Trump does with his hopes of overturning the results. It’s not different.
If that happened, and 10’s of millions of people were on board - then we’d be in the same situation as right now.
I get it. Fucking around with faithfulness of electors is fine and dandy as long as it’s legal. Now name something Trump has done in his crusade that’s illegal.
I don’t think anything. He’s acting like a person with the intelligence of a teenager. He declared victory on election night while the votes were still being counted.
People trust voting less now than they would have before this. That’s bad. That’s a real effect.
Not everything that’s bad is illegal.
I said a long time ago that Trump would go down fighting and use every legal means available to fight.
You may not agree with it, but it is not illegal, immoral or any danger to the Republic or rule of law.
I suspect the wailing and gnashing of teeth in the media , is a trifle overblown, donchyathink?
-
@xenon said in Trump himself consents to transition:
@horace said in Trump himself consents to transition:
@xenon said in Trump himself consents to transition:
@horace said in Trump himself consents to transition:
@xenon said in Trump himself consents to transition:
@horace said in Trump himself consents to transition:
@xenon so you’re just positing as an obvious truism that Trump’s complaints of voter fraud, which will prove ineffective, pose a meaningful threat to something or other, and more meaningful than electors screwing around with their faithfulness to their electorate?
No - the legacy of the faithless electors will be a historical curiosity. The legacy of Trump’s election fraud nonsense will be a significant portion of the electorate trusting election results much less.
He won’t turn over the presidency, but the effect of that loss of trust is TBD
As I said, matter of degrees. It’s not binary. (Effect or no practical effect. )
Your first paragraph would have been a more coherent response to my question if the first word was “yes” rather than “no”.
So you’re saying there will be no lingering effect from people trusting elections less? I disagree. (You could be right) I don’t see how that’s a matter of coherence
You are positing as an obvious truism that Trump’s crusade about election fraud is a bigger deal than electors attempting to use faithlessness to express outrage at the election of Donald Trump. The binary of effect or no effect are your words, not mine.
States can get rid of faithless electors in law if they want. You can’t get rid of election trutherism with any rule or law changes.
It’s not a truism - I have a rationale for why one is different than the other.
Neither can you get rid of righteous political hatred which will cause people to abandon all propriety in an effort to have their way, a way they cannot imagine being anything other than for the greater good.
-
@xenon said in Trump himself consents to transition:
@copper said in Trump himself consents to transition:
The whole dispute has been very much open and in public.
If no, or only minor, problems are found, what's not to trust?
Ask Jolly or Larry. Jolly has said multiple times that 50,000,000 Americans think the election was stolen.
You said "a significant portion of the electorate trusting election results much less."
I think you are wrong.
And why would anyone think "He won’t turn over the presidency"? Has he said anything like that? I have only heard this kind of talk from extreme TDS types.
-
@jolly said in Trump himself consents to transition:
@xenon said in Trump himself consents to transition:
@horace said in Trump himself consents to transition:
@xenon said in Trump himself consents to transition:
@horace said in Trump himself consents to transition:
@xenon said in Trump himself consents to transition:
Trump is different. He wants to change the results based on bullshit and 10’s of millions of people agree with him and believe the bullshit.
10s of millions of people would have rejoiced had the faithless electors succeeded. I figure they had as much of a chance as Trump does with his hopes of overturning the results. It’s not different.
If that happened, and 10’s of millions of people were on board - then we’d be in the same situation as right now.
I get it. Fucking around with faithfulness of electors is fine and dandy as long as it’s legal. Now name something Trump has done in his crusade that’s illegal.
I don’t think anything. He’s acting like a person with the intelligence of a teenager. He declared victory on election night while the votes were still being counted.
People trust voting less now than they would have before this. That’s bad. That’s a real effect.
Not everything that’s bad is illegal.
I said a long time ago that Trump would go down fighting and use every legal means available to fight.
You may not agree with it, but it is not illegal, immoral or any danger to the Republic or rule of law.
I suspect the wailing and gnashing of teeth in the media , is a trifle overblown, donchyathink?
I guess declaring victory on election night and saying the election was stolen without evidence is not illegal.
But as I said, not everything that’s bad is illegal.
-
@jon-nyc said in Trump himself consents to transition:
I would suggest we go back to 2016/17 on the old board to see how much attention we gave it. That is a reasonable proxy for how big a threat to democratic order this really was.
Why would that be a reasonable proxy? I bring it up to contrast with the reaction to Trump’s campaign about fraud. Even if I equate the two in terms of severity, I would be embarrassed to get histrionic about either one.
-
@horace said in Trump himself consents to transition:
@horace said in Trump himself consents to transition:
@jon-nyc said in Trump himself consents to transition:
This was my concern expressed 5.5 months ago.
What saved us is the answer to my last question was 'yes'. Other institutions saved us from Trumps attempt to subvert our democracy. Specifically, state courts and the conscience of Michigan's GOP leaders. In absence of the latter it's highly likely that Michigan's state courts would have protected us. This time.
But yes, I agree with your point, @Horace. We need to make sure some other Trump-like figure couldn't do this again.
Right, it's just a Trump-like figure. Not the electors that tried to steal the election from him in 2016.
Wherein I remind jon of the electors with TDS in 2016 trying to build a cross-aisle coalition of faithlessness in a last ditch effort to subvert the will of the people and keep Trump from the White House. See above for the rest of the conversation. Then google for the true motivations of the Democrat electors who pulled the stunt. The worms admitted it on NPR. Probably bragged about it, thinking it would come off as righteous.
Number of fucks given by the left at this enormous destruction of political norms: zero.
The will of the people was for Hillary Clinton by over 3 million votes. The archaic electoral college is the saving grace that allows a Republican to sit in the White House. We haven't had a decent one since Eisenhower.
-
@nobodyssock said in Trump himself consents to transition:
@horace said in Trump himself consents to transition:
@horace said in Trump himself consents to transition:
@jon-nyc said in Trump himself consents to transition:
This was my concern expressed 5.5 months ago.
What saved us is the answer to my last question was 'yes'. Other institutions saved us from Trumps attempt to subvert our democracy. Specifically, state courts and the conscience of Michigan's GOP leaders. In absence of the latter it's highly likely that Michigan's state courts would have protected us. This time.
But yes, I agree with your point, @Horace. We need to make sure some other Trump-like figure couldn't do this again.
Right, it's just a Trump-like figure. Not the electors that tried to steal the election from him in 2016.
Wherein I remind jon of the electors with TDS in 2016 trying to build a cross-aisle coalition of faithlessness in a last ditch effort to subvert the will of the people and keep Trump from the White House. See above for the rest of the conversation. Then google for the true motivations of the Democrat electors who pulled the stunt. The worms admitted it on NPR. Probably bragged about it, thinking it would come off as righteous.
Number of fucks given by the left at this enormous destruction of political norms: zero.
The will of the people was for Hillary Clinton by over 3 million votes. The archaic electoral college is the saving grace that allows a Republican to sit in the White House. We haven't had a decent one since Eisenhower.
NS, sometimes you don’t write very clearly. If I may ask, can you say clearly once and for all whether you like Republicans and Donald Trump, or dislike them?
-
I think anybody who acts as a faithless elector is flat out disgusting, whichever party they belong to.
$1000 isn't a big enough fine. They should be put in jail and lose the ability to take part in politics ever again, although actually the solution is to remove the quirk in the electoral process that allows them to act in this way.
-
@horace said in Trump himself consents to transition:
Why would that be a reasonable proxy?
Well, to the perceived threat anyway.
-
@horace said in Trump himself consents to transition:
@nobodyssock said in Trump himself consents to transition:
@horace said in Trump himself consents to transition:
@horace said in Trump himself consents to transition:
@jon-nyc said in Trump himself consents to transition:
This was my concern expressed 5.5 months ago.
What saved us is the answer to my last question was 'yes'. Other institutions saved us from Trumps attempt to subvert our democracy. Specifically, state courts and the conscience of Michigan's GOP leaders. In absence of the latter it's highly likely that Michigan's state courts would have protected us. This time.
But yes, I agree with your point, @Horace. We need to make sure some other Trump-like figure couldn't do this again.
Right, it's just a Trump-like figure. Not the electors that tried to steal the election from him in 2016.
Wherein I remind jon of the electors with TDS in 2016 trying to build a cross-aisle coalition of faithlessness in a last ditch effort to subvert the will of the people and keep Trump from the White House. See above for the rest of the conversation. Then google for the true motivations of the Democrat electors who pulled the stunt. The worms admitted it on NPR. Probably bragged about it, thinking it would come off as righteous.
Number of fucks given by the left at this enormous destruction of political norms: zero.
The will of the people was for Hillary Clinton by over 3 million votes. The archaic electoral college is the saving grace that allows a Republican to sit in the White House. We haven't had a decent one since Eisenhower.
NS, sometimes you don’t write very clearly. If I may ask, can you say clearly once and for all whether you like Republicans and Donald Trump, or dislike them?
I like plenty of republicans. Im surrounded by them. My best friends are all right minded. I just dont agree with many of their political ideas. Now Trump on the other hand, i would despise him just as much if he was a democrat. He’s amoral and believes the world revilves around him. The worst kind of person you want to run a country. No empathy or compassion or intellect whatsoever.
-
@jon-nyc said in Trump himself consents to transition:
@horace said in Trump himself consents to transition:
Why would that be a reasonable proxy?
Well, to the perceived threat anyway.
TDS causes its sufferers to perceive great threat in everything he does. There is no analogue to TDS among his supporters at the time this took place. And no media support to amplify the hysteria. I didn’t even know about the intentions of these faithless Dem electors till I learned about it on a podcast. But one of them did in fact admit to the hope to build a coalition of faithlessness across the aisle to elect someone other than Trump.
