Trump himself consents to transition
-
wrote on 23 Dec 2020, 16:32 last edited by jon-nyc
The point of contention isn’t whether you’ve ever mentioned it. This is your claim from yesterday:
Even jon pretended not to understand it happened.
That’s false.
-
The point of contention isn’t whether you’ve ever mentioned it. This is your claim from yesterday:
Even jon pretended not to understand it happened.
That’s false.
wrote on 23 Dec 2020, 16:34 last edited by Horace@jon-nyc said in Trump himself consents to transition:
The point of contention isn’t whether you’ve ever mentioned it. This is your claim from yesterday:
Even jon pretended not to understand it happened.
That’s false.
Ok then you were unaware it happened. I guess the MSM did its job in covering it up, even to the extent a detailed follower of politics like you was unaware of this attempted breach of fundamental political norms by your own side.
-
@jon-nyc said in Trump himself consents to transition:
The point of contention isn’t whether you’ve ever mentioned it. This is your claim from yesterday:
Even jon pretended not to understand it happened.
That’s false.
Ok then you were unaware it happened. I guess the MSM did its job in covering it up, even to the extent a detailed follower of politics like you was unaware of this attempted breach of fundamental political norms by your own side.
-
wrote on 23 Dec 2020, 16:38 last edited by
@jon-nyc said in Trump himself consents to transition:
That’s also false.
By all means explain yourself. And thanks for refraining from using the phrase straw man, I know you are tempted.
-
wrote on 23 Dec 2020, 16:54 last edited by
I was not unaware that 2016 had numerous faithless electors.
-
wrote on 23 Dec 2020, 17:03 last edited by
Our Supreme Court even weighed in on the 2016 faithless electors.
No one talked about democracy in peril then. LOL. God if they say it enough it becomes true right? That’s the new science.
-
Our Supreme Court even weighed in on the 2016 faithless electors.
No one talked about democracy in peril then. LOL. God if they say it enough it becomes true right? That’s the new science.
wrote on 23 Dec 2020, 17:14 last edited by@loki said in Trump himself consents to transition:
Our Supreme Court even weighed in on the 2016 faithless electors.
No one talked about democracy in peril then. LOL. God if they say it enough it becomes true right? That’s the new science.
And that story misrepresents the motivations of the electors. Just says they refused to vote for Hillary, as if they hated Hillary. It’s no wonder so few of us understand the true motivations. The media covered it with a pillow. On some level even TDS sufferers are ashamed of themselves. But they feel snug and safe that they have herd immunity from public shaming.
-
wrote on 23 Dec 2020, 17:18 last edited by
I don't understand - if they were supposed to vote for Hillary, and didn't, how is that trying to steal the election for the Democrats?
-
I don't understand - if they were supposed to vote for Hillary, and didn't, how is that trying to steal the election for the Democrats?
wrote on 23 Dec 2020, 17:27 last edited by@doctor-phibes said in Trump himself consents to transition:
I don't understand - if they were supposed to vote for Hillary, and didn't, how is that trying to steal the election for the Democrats?
They didn’t vote for Trump instead. They voted for someone they thought the republicans might be amenable to, in the hopes the republican electors would follow the lead of faithlessness. They got 2 Trump electors, so it didn’t fail completely.
This motivation was admitted to by one of the faithless dem electors in an interview.
-
wrote on 23 Dec 2020, 17:38 last edited by xenon
I read up in this a bit. Most states have a mechanism to force a faithless elector to change their vote. Only a few have no proscribed action for a faithless elector.
A faithless elector is something that states can pretty much legislate out of existence (and most have - it just remains a symbolic thing).
But it feels different than saying that the election itself is a fraud. To allow the existence of faithless electors is in someway a deliberate choice by states.
Voter fraud is a different beast. It’s a subversion of the rules themselves. Feels like a beast you don’t want to feed.
-
I read up in this a bit. Most states have a mechanism to force a faithless elector to change their vote. Only a few have no proscribed action for a faithless elector.
A faithless elector is something that states can pretty much legislate out of existence (and most have - it just remains a symbolic thing).
But it feels different than saying that the election itself is a fraud. To allow the existence of faithless electors is in someway a deliberate choice by states.
Voter fraud is a different beast. It’s a subversion of the rules themselves. Feels like a beast you don’t want to feed.
wrote on 23 Dec 2020, 17:46 last edited by@xenon said in Trump himself consents to transition:
I read up in this a bit. Most states have a mechanism to force a faithless elector to change their vote. Only a few have no proscribed action for a faithless elector.
A faithless elector is something that states can pretty much legislate out of existence (and most have - it just remains a symbolic thing).
But it feels different than saying that the election itself is a fraud. To allow the existence of faithless electors is in someway a deliberate choice by states.
Voter fraud is a different beast. It’s a subversion of the rules themselves. Feels like a beast you don’t want to feed.
This is all a bunch of nonsense in reality but it’s worth a discussion when folks start hyperventilating about democracy being threatened and just how close we came. It’s like grow up.
-
I read up in this a bit. Most states have a mechanism to force a faithless elector to change their vote. Only a few have no proscribed action for a faithless elector.
A faithless elector is something that states can pretty much legislate out of existence (and most have - it just remains a symbolic thing).
But it feels different than saying that the election itself is a fraud. To allow the existence of faithless electors is in someway a deliberate choice by states.
Voter fraud is a different beast. It’s a subversion of the rules themselves. Feels like a beast you don’t want to feed.
-
@xenon no commentary on the attempt to establish a coalition of faithlessness by powers on the left who hated Trump?
wrote on 23 Dec 2020, 17:51 last edited by xenon@horace said in Trump himself consents to transition:
@xenon no commentary on the attempt to establish a coalition of faithlessness by powers on the left who hated Trump?
Well - that’s a matter of political philosophy.
The US system has a bunch of “undemocratic” ethos built into it.
The founders did not like direct democracy. The senate started as an appointed, not elected body.
Having people in the process who “know better” was part of the design.
The electoral college itself is a “hybrid” democratic institution. Skews pretty “representative” to the side of representative democracy.
Not necessarily a subversion from that lens.
FWIW - I don’t think pure democracy is necessarily a good thing.
-
@xenon no commentary on the attempt to establish a coalition of faithlessness by powers on the left who hated Trump?
wrote on 23 Dec 2020, 17:58 last edited by@horace said in Trump himself consents to transition:
by powers on the left
Wikipedia:
The faithless electors who opposed Donald Trump were part of a movement dubbed the Hamilton Electors co-founded by Micheal Baca of Colorado and Bret Chiafalo of Washington.
-
wrote on 23 Dec 2020, 17:58 last edited by
So you would have had no political issue with it had the scheme succeeded? No feeling that political norms had been violated?
-
So you would have had no political issue with it had the scheme succeeded? No feeling that political norms had been violated?
-
Are you talking to me? I would definitely have had a problem with it had it succeeded. I would have been upset had it been backed by the Democratic establishment.
-
wrote on 23 Dec 2020, 18:07 last edited by
If you have an issue with my word “left” I’m happy to rephrase as TDS sufferer. That’s more to the point anyway.
-
wrote on 23 Dec 2020, 18:09 last edited by
I think your attempt to present this as a Democratic establishment effort to deny him the presidency falls flat.
This was a stunt organized by a huffpo columnist and a handful of actors. Nothing at all comparable to the current moment.