Touche.
You have a point
Trump Post Election News.
- Thread starter Free-Stater 101
- Start date
You have a point
strunkenwhite
Well-known member
I dunno, I still see plenty of it. And they have a reason to: the four biggest states (and they are the biggest by a lot) are split evenly between R and D, but the D states lean way more heavily D than the R states do R. Switching to the popular vote gives them an advantage.
I wouldn't consider that a "reinstatement" anyway, just like I wouldn't say Grover Cleveland's (nonconsecutive) second term reinstated him; but that's just sematics.
Airedale260
Well-known member
The difference is that Cleveland went through the constitutional process to win a second term. A coup would be unconstitutiona for a variety of reasons, not to mention the fact that it would completely wreck the constitutional order and collapse the country. At which point we really do go the way of the Roman Republic and have to suffer through a series of megalomaniacs seizing power while the people on the ground get caught in the crossfire, and everyone turns on everyone else as a “Me First” policy. That is not and has never been a solid foundation for a country.
Though my concern is less Trump bitching about it because he simply can’t let it go as it is him fucking over everyone else who wants to move on and look to avenging 2020 and doing it by the book, namely campaigning on why checks are needed on Biden and Co for the midterms, and then how badly he’s screwed up and why he should be replaced in 2024. “I should be in office because Biden has not only fucked up A through G, but he’s also not even willing to listen to those he disagrees with who are genuinely trying to help fix A through G like the people want” is or at least has great potential to be a winning message, but “I should be in office because I really won last time and even though I couldn’t provide sufficient evidence to prove it I should be put in because it’s only fair, and anyone who disagrees with me is an enemy of America” is decidedly not.
And that’s even before the fact that, whatever one may think of the events of January 6th, Trump did not come out of that looking good in the minds of independents, that is, the people he needs to convince in order to flip the presidency. So between that and his refusal to look forward, it’s a recipe for disaster.
*-The one exception to that is if it’s done to safeguard the constitutional order and remove someone who has not been certified and whatnot through the constitutional process, or someone who is already violating. Biden, like it or not, was certified as the winner of the electoral vote and, under the Constitution, is the president. If, say, Kamala Harris were to have Biden arrested and either imprisoned in ADX Florence or even outright executed and claim she’s the legitimate president, then the military would be justified in moving against her, although the repercussions from even that would be severe and terrible to contemplate.
Trump’s term expired on January 20th at noon. As Battlegrinder pointed out, there is no such thing as a “reinstatement” because legally, Biden is serving a four-year term as spelled out in the Constitution. The reason I think Trump and those around him don’t understand this is that this isn’t a lawsuit or ordinary civil litigation...constitutional law is a very different field from both civil and criminal, and simply overturning something leads to a whole new set of consequences; it very much does not revert to “the other party in the case takes the reins” like it would be over a property.
Last edited:
How did he not come out looking good? Because the media made it seem like he was responsible for it? When he was miles away when it happend.
He laid the groundwork for it to happen with his claims about the election being stolen, addressed the crowd and doubled down on that claim, lying to them about Pence having the power to swing the election his way at last minute. They were his supporter, their actions reflect on him.
Trump is not, legally speaking, responsible. Nothing he did or said was criminally actionable. But it was reckless and irresponsible, or at best an act of such poor judgement he cannot be trusted with authority going forward.
Airedale260
Well-known member
That plus the fact that, when the shit hit the fan, he didn’t make any serious statements in an attempt to actually call the crowd off, nor did he authorize either the DC Guard or any Marines or members of the 3rd Infantry Regiment to mobilize and support the USCP; in fact, there are some reports that he either deliberately ignored or actively denied requests for assistance, and that he was wandering around the White House watching things unfold which at best would suggest he was completely clueless about how serious things were, and at worst was acting in such a way that he hoped it would succeed but, if it failed, would mean he was legally covered against allegations of orchestrating an insurrection.
And that, in turn, means that at best he really is an idiot and so incompetent that he can’t even be trusted to do basic things that a president is expected to do in crises, and at worst means that he actively or passively supported an attack against a coequal branch of government, which is a blatant violation of his oath of office, but also borders on outright treason (and depending on how the definition in the Constitution is interpreted, such action or inaction may actually be treason). And I don’t think I need to explain why the average American would be uncomfortable with such a person.
That's going a bit far. He did make a statement calling for calm.and telling people to go home.
As for calling in the guard or military or stalling them, doing that is really tricky if you're doing in DC, because who has authority to do what gets really complicated really fast. Trump probably could gotten boots on the ground faster if he really, really, really wanted to, but as far as I know there was not actually a pressing need to get reinforcements on the ground ASAP, so I can't really fault him for not pushing too hard (that's not to say that him not doing more was actually good).
It's not treason though. Treason requires actively waging war against the US or aiding those that are, and a riot, even a riot at the US capital, doesn't meet that threshold.
As for calling in the guard or military or stalling them, doing that is really tricky if you're doing in DC, because who has authority to do what gets really complicated really fast. Trump probably could gotten boots on the ground faster if he really, really, really wanted to, but as far as I know there was not actually a pressing need to get reinforcements on the ground ASAP, so I can't really fault him for not pushing too hard (that's not to say that him not doing more was actually good).
It's not treason though. Treason requires actively waging war against the US or aiding those that are, and a riot, even a riot at the US capital, doesn't meet that threshold.
Airedale260
Well-known member
The statement was several hours after things started to go south and came off to a lot of people as a forced statement, or at least "I'm really only saying this so I don't get arrested", though, is the response to that.
Personally speaking, though, what I believe isn't that relevant compared to people who are generally skeptical of Trump at large. If they decide to accept his statements and that he simply underestimated the seriousness, then fine.
Same with the treason perspective... I'm not convinced it necessarily rises to that level, but there are a *lot* of people who do.
Stuff started popping off during his speech. In his speech he kept saying to be peaceful. Then later he made an announcement asking people to stop. And he asked for national guard to be there before the event.
This shit wasn't Trump's fault.
Terthna
Professional Lurker
The problem with all that is that the only people who want to "move on" are those who simply refuse to believe that our voting system is dead, when it most assuredly is.
Claims that were true, mind you. And the vast majority of the groundwork for what happened on the 6th was laid by the left, thanks to them setting the precedent over and over again that rioting was perfectly acceptable behavior.
Actually he did; it's just that people like you, the diehard Republican tribalists, weren't interested in hearing it, because the GOP establishment narrative had shifted towards embracing the regressive left's narrative about Trump (mostly so they could finally oust the political outsider).
Airedale260
Well-known member
Oh, hello again. Is this because you are still clinging to the whole "it was definitely a stolen election" shtick that I've called you out on multiple times, which you then ignore and try to repeat when I'm not looking despite absence of evidence?
Hm. Well, leaving aside the fact that there's no hard evidence of the claims being true from any reputable sources, including reputable conservative sources, I'm going to say that two wrongs don't make a right.
Uh...no, he really didn't. It wasn't until around 4 when he finally did that and even when he did it was pretty lukewarm. In fact up until that point I had been willing to consider the possibility that he was in shock and so unable to actually respond, but the statement that afternoon strongly came off to a lot of people as "I'm saying this so my ass doesn't get sent to ADX Florence, but thanks for trying anyway, everyone."
Me being a "Republican tribalist" is kind of an amusing charge, though. Unless by that you mean "Individual who is more loyal to a set of political beliefs than to any single person" which, news flash, is the reason political parties are even a thing in this world.
But, as usual, you ignore my broader point, which is that Trump and his supporters need to accept the fact that, as much as they don't want to believe it, his base simply does not have enough people to win an election. And that if he's going to win, he needs to win over people who were turned off by his behavior, fairly or unfairly. Right now, that's a very tall order, and his behavior this far suggests strongly that he can't do it.
In 2020 Trump gained support in every group except white males. He lost some white males. Every other group? Went up.
White males weren't even a majority of his support.
Trump had more votes than ANY INCUMBENT CANDIDATE IN HISTORY.
Trump was massively popular. Also massively hated by the other side.
Trump's base is one of the largest political coalitions in history.
Claims that you believe are true, but that's far from a universally, or even widely accepted position, even months later after an intense search for evidence. You need more than "well, I believe it" to justify.....well, the rioters didn't actually have any sort of viable plan to enact change, but if they had, it was irresponsible to try and execute it without ironclad proof, which they did not have.
People are responsible for thier own choices, actions, and morals, trying to go "the left made me do it" is a transparent attempt at blame shifting.
2020 turnout was heavily inflated by mail in ballots and the like, I'm not sure it can be taken at face value. Since by that logic, the most popular candidate in American history, with the largest supporter base ever is......Joe Biden. I don't think I've ever meet or even heard of an unironic fan of Joe Biden and I'm reasonably certain they don't exist.
Terthna
Professional Lurker
Mostly because openly expressing that belief is punished, as there is more than enough evidence to support the conclusion that the 2020 election was fraudulent (not that that matters in the face of your willful ignorance); though I'll give you that the rioters didn't go in with much of a plan, which was my biggest criticism concerning what went down that day.
Except there's evidence that the left did, in fact, made them do it; through infiltrators goading them on, and the cops just inviting them into the capital building. Regardless, the fact of the matter is that the left spent a year altering the perception of what was right and what was wrong in the eyes of the state; you can't exactly hold it against people for doing something that was only considered wrong because of who was doing it.
LindyAF
Well-known member
Is this actually true? I think there's a general perception in America that "independents" are a midpoint between "moderate" democrats and "moderate" republicans, both of which disliked Jan 6th and blame Trump for it, so it must have come off poorly with independents as well, but it isn't really true that independents are a midpoint. I'd be interested to see any polling you or anyone has seen on the matter.
Polling I've seen that indicates that Independents are actually less likely to support an commission to investigate Jan 6th than Republicans are (and much less likely than Democrats), and more likely to support internal reviews than Republicans (and much more likely than Democrats). Other polling I've seen indicates that less than half of independents say they blame Trump (although significantly more than Republicans). Although other polling gives those that do blame Trump a narrow majority.
Last edited:
There is evidence that it's possible, but not enough to form a conclusion.
For example, the last bit of proof I saw being weed around was some counting machines in a country in Vermont that due to an alleged error would count votes from some mail in ballots only going to democrats. That is suspicious, but it's not in and of itself proof of tampering, more information was needed.
How widespread were these machines, was the error unique to this one area or could it have been highly localized? How many votes could this error have flipped, was this actually enough to swing the election or was it an immaterial error? Was it an error or on purpose, and if so, why? Vermont is very blue state, no one thought Trump would flip it so why rig the game against him?
Proving an entire election as illegitimate takes more than one bit of evidence that's widely extrapolated without reason, and that's what seems to happen whenever these claims are made.
It also doesn't help that it's not presented properly. There is a reason that when a prosecutor is trying to convince a jury (which is more or less analogous to what you're doing) they don't do what you're doing, IE, just state the defendant is guilty and if you disagree you're just in denial, nor thry just dump a giant pile of evidence on the desk and demand the jury sort it out for themselves. They have to go through the hard part of taking evidence, understanding it, and then stitching it all together into one, digestible narrative. They do that because people don't respond to "here's a million links from a bunch of internet randos, figure it out". Relying on just having a giant pile of stuff and using it to try and bully poeple into submission is a dishonest tactic to force surrender in a debate, it's not how you convince people.
Cops didn't "invite them in", the Capitol police didn't try and barricade all the doors to the building and instead ceded ground to the mob. That's not inviting them in, that's just avoiding a confrontation on unfavorably terms.
As for infiltrators "goading them on", there's been a handful of antifa types and other liberal activities arrested, yes. That changes nothing. Liberal activists do not have mind control powers, they cannot force you into committing crimes against your will. The rioters made a choice to commit a criminal act, the fact that in a tiny handful of cases, a liberal might have suggested the go ahead and do that crime first changes nothing.
I can and I will. Notions of right and wrong come from within, from personal beliefs and convictions about the world. Not from CNN.
Also, this excuse is logically incoherent, as it implies right wingers not only listen to and trust leftist media more than right wing media (which was ardently anti rioting), but they are only trusting of in this one narrow field for some reason.
LindyAF
Well-known member
Yeah and Whites (including White Men) vote at much higher rates and vote in more electorally important areas. The flip side of the Sailer Strategy is that if it was real then what looks like a small loss with White Men on paper would be much more electorally significant than his gains with hispanics and blacks. 5% of White Men not showing up could lose you Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. Gaining like 10% with Hispanics isn't going to get you California, at best it might help you keep Arizona.
I'm not sure the second claim is true. Despite him not energizing White Men like he did in 2016, we were still the group far most likely to vote for him. The only other group that was more likely to vote for him than not was White Women. Although though the difference in our support for him and White Women's support for him was narrower than in 2016, the volume of minority support for him was low enough (despite rising from 2016), that I think this would actually be pretty close.
Terthna
Professional Lurker
In the months since the election, people have repeatedly shown you numerous video recordings, government records, and personal accounts (including that of the owner of this forum, LordSunhawk) that support the conclusion that it was. Combine that with the fact that the left has resisted every attempt to investigate what went down, and tried to silence anyone who points out the obvious; I'm sorry, but you don't get to pretend that you're a reasonable person when you ignore all that and continue to insist that there was no fraud.
There is video of cops literally removing barricades and inviting them inside the building; I know it's been shown to you, so don't pretend that it doesn't exist.
You clearly do not understand mob mentality, or the concept of incitement.
True; but not everyone shares your notions of what is right and wrong.
Last edited:
Less than 50% of his results were white men, so we were not the majority of his vote, bit s plurality.
The other 50+% was a coalition of women and minorities.
White men were still the biggest part of his base, but not a majority.
LindyAF
Well-known member
I don't really doubt you - >50% coming from ~30% of the "US" population would seem like a fairly tall order, but I would like a source.