2022 Elections Thread

[Bobcat]

I didn't realize that they were sore losers that attempted a coup

How dumb do you have to be to believe that a president would order a coup with a couple hundred unarmed rednecks?

houndawg dumb

[AZGrizFan]

How dumb do you have to be to believe that a president would order a coup with a couple hundred unarmed rednecks?

houndawg dumb

Hence why Cid nicknamed him densedawg.

[UNI88]

How dumb do you have to be to believe that a president would order a coup with a couple hundred unarmed rednecks?

houndawg dumb

That's almost as dumb as buying the election was stolen lie.

[UNI88]

Ousted Florida data scientist Rebekah Jones wins House primary, will face Rep. Matt Gaetz

I don't think she stands a chance but could her candidacy impact other Florida races?

Baldy?

[JohnStOnge]

After the Supreme Court made its decision, Gore stood down and gave a concession speech. He also, as Vice President, rejected a handful of challenges to Electors. Hillary Clinton made a concession speech during which she stressed the importance of accepting the result and the peaceful transition of power.

And then her and her party spent the next 4 years bitching about how the election was stolen from her. So yeah, it IS a pox on both houses.

I Googled around and found some instances in which she questioned the legitimacy of the election in certain senses. But she did not allege voter fraud. She talked about voter suppression and the impact of the Russian disinformation campaign. The biggest things, though, are that 1) she conceded the result quickly while saying the peaceful transition of power was important and 2) it has not been a constant theme with her.

We have all seen how Trump has behaved. He did everything he could to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power and it's still all "election was stolen" all the time. And it's really obviously false. Hillary Clinton never called a State Secretary of State and try to get them to change the vote count. She never tried to convince State legislatures to throw out certified electors and replace them with their own. It's not the same at all. And we all really know it. Trump is much, much worse.

Also we have never had to worry that if a Democrat wins an office like Secretary of State in some State we are going to have to worry about someone trying to control the results by doing things like tossing out votes as necessary for their side to win. We do have to worry about that with the Republicans right now.

[JohnStOnge]

I didn't realize that they were sore losers that attempted a coup

How dumb do you have to be to believe that a president would order a coup with a couple hundred unarmed rednecks?

All other things aside: The Justice Department estimates that 2,000 to 2,500 rioters entered the Capital (see Also, many of them were armed. The extent to which they were armed with firearms is unknown. But many were clearly armed.

Was it an attempted coup? i guess that is debatable given the definition of coup. But it's not unreasonable to say that it was.

As for how dumb a President would have to be to order such a thing: Trump did not "order" it. He encouraged it. And he clearly did so with the aim of trying to stop the peaceful transition of power.

[JohnStOnge]

This stuff of trying to minimize how bad Trump has been, to try to act like "everybody does it," etc., is really bad.

[Skjellyfetti]

It really is. There's no comparison and the attempts are laughable.

[AZGrizFan]

It really is. There's no comparison and the attempts are laughable.

You’re correct. Trump is an amateur and not smart enough to hide his grift. Clinton, Obama, Biden et.al. Are professionals, life long grifters who are much better at hiding their theft behind the guise of “politics”.

[GannonFan]

Also we have never had to worry that if a Democrat wins an office like Secretary of State in some State we are going to have to worry about someone trying to control the results by doing things like tossing out votes as necessary for their side to win. We do have to worry about that with the Republicans right now.

Why? What examples do you have of a Republican Sec of State changing an election outcome by tossing out votes as necessary? I bet a Republican Sec of State has done it as often as a Democratic Sec of State has (which, by my math, is zero).

[kalm]

Also we have never had to worry that if a Democrat wins an office like Secretary of State in some State we are going to have to worry about someone trying to control the results by doing things like tossing out votes as necessary for their side to win. We do have to worry about that with the Republicans right now.

Why? What examples do you have of a Republican Sec of State changing an election outcome by tossing out votes as necessary? I bet a Republican Sec of State has done it as often as a Democratic Sec of State has (which, by my math, is zero).

This is the constitutional question surrounding state electors angle you dismissed without addressing fully.

[GannonFan]

Why? What examples do you have of a Republican Sec of State changing an election outcome by tossing out votes as necessary? I bet a Republican Sec of State has done it as often as a Democratic Sec of State has (which, by my math, is zero).

This is the constitutional question surrounding state electors angle you dismissed without addressing fully.

I did, you just didn't care for the answer as it didn't fit your preconceived scoping of the question. One person (a Sec of State) will never be allowed to change an election by tossing out votes without the consent of the judiciary branch, at a minimum. If 1/6 taught us anything (other than Trump being completely unhinged as a person) it's that our system of checks and balances and shared power, not just at the federal level but at all levels, is so robust that one person, even the President, isn't able to just sweep all that aside at a whim. We weren't on the precipice, our system of government is far stronger than you or JSO are making it out to be. JSO's conjecture that a GOP Sec of State is more a danger than a Dem Sec of State holds no merit.

[UNI88]

Why? What examples do you have of a Republican Sec of State changing an election outcome by tossing out votes as necessary? I bet a Republican Sec of State has done it as often as a Democratic Sec of State has (which, by my math, is zero).

This is the constitutional question surrounding state electors angle you dismissed without addressing fully.

I think I addressed it.

[GannonFan]

This is the constitutional question surrounding state electors angle you dismissed without addressing fully.

I think I addressed it.

I'm sure kalmie didn't approve of your response either. It wasn't the answer he was looking for.

[Baldy]

Why? What examples do you have of a Republican Sec of State changing an election outcome by tossing out votes as necessary? I bet a Republican Sec of State has done it as often as a Democratic Sec of State has (which, by my math, is zero).

This is the constitutional question surrounding state electors angle you dismissed without addressing fully.

Do Secretaries of State choose their state's electors?

[kalm]

This is the constitutional question surrounding state electors angle you dismissed without addressing fully.

I did, you just didn't care for the answer as it didn't fit your preconceived scoping of the question. One person (a Sec of State) will never be allowed to change an election by tossing out votes without the consent of the judiciary branch, at a minimum. If 1/6 taught us anything (other than Trump being completely unhinged as a person) it's that our system of checks and balances and shared power, not just at the federal level but at all levels, is so robust that one person, even the President, isn't able to just sweep all that aside at a whim. We weren't on the precipice, our system of government is far stronger than you or JSO are making it out to be. JSO's conjecture that a GOP Sec of State is more a danger than a Dem Sec of State holds no merit.

How about a legislature?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... ture-power

[GannonFan]

I did, you just didn't care for the answer as it didn't fit your preconceived scoping of the question. One person (a Sec of State) will never be allowed to change an election by tossing out votes without the consent of the judiciary branch, at a minimum. If 1/6 taught us anything (other than Trump being completely unhinged as a person) it's that our system of checks and balances and shared power, not just at the federal level but at all levels, is so robust that one person, even the President, isn't able to just sweep all that aside at a whim. We weren't on the precipice, our system of government is far stronger than you or JSO are making it out to be. JSO's conjecture that a GOP Sec of State is more a danger than a Dem Sec of State holds no merit.

How about a legislature?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... ture-power

So does that mean you're waving the white flag on the rogue GOP Sec of State unilaterally overturning an election with this quick pivot to the discusion of ISL?

Even with all the criticism of ISL, you don't see anyone really arguing what you're implying here, that a legislature, following an election, can and will just disregard the election because they don't like the results, and unilaterally substituting their own election results. That's your line of thinking going from JSO's absurd one elected official just changing an election outcome on a whim to you now implying that's what at stake in the Moore v. Harper case, which is such an oversimplification of that case that it completely misses the mark. Take a breath and really decide what you want to argue here and we can go from there. You're like a poster with ADHD, you flit from one thing to the next so quickly you lose your train of thought. We'll wait.

[Baldy]

How dumb do you have to be to believe that a president would order a coup with a couple hundred unarmed rednecks?

All other things aside: The Justice Department estimates that 2,000 to 2,500 rioters entered the Capital (see Also, many of them were armed. The extent to which they were armed with firearms is unknown. But many were clearly armed.

Was it an attempted coup? i guess that is debatable given the definition of coup. But it's not unreasonable to say that it was.

As for how dumb a President would have to be to order such a thing: Trump did not "order" it. He encouraged it. And he clearly did so with the aim of trying to stop the peaceful transition of power.

Oh, the justice department says...

Is that the same Justice Department who called parents that attend school board meetings domestic terrorists?

OK, how dumb to you have to be to be to believe that a president would "encourage" a couple hundred rednecks to overthrow the US government?

[kalm]

How about a legislature?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... ture-power

So does that mean you're waving the white flag on the rogue GOP Sec of State unilaterally overturning an election with this quick pivot to the discusion of ISL?

Even with all the criticism of ISL, you don't see anyone really arguing what you're implying here, that a legislature, following an election, can and will just disregard the election because they don't like the results, and unilaterally substituting their own election results. That's your line of thinking going from JSO's absurd one elected official just changing an election outcome on a whim to you now implying that's what at stake in the Moore v. Harper case, which is such an oversimplification of that case that it completely misses the mark. Take a breath and really decide what you want to argue here and we can go from there. You're like a poster with ADHD, you flit from one thing to the next so quickly you lose your train of thought. We'll wait.

Not at all. They’re both important and connected to a transparent effort to subvert our election system. Meet the the AZ MAGA nominee who was at the J6 rally and is a member of the Oath Keepers. There are similar candidates in 4 other swing states.

I like Democracy and pay attention to obvious threats. Especially the ones that have already been attempted at the legislative and threatened at the SoS levels.

“Ladies and gentlemen, we know it and they know it: Donald Trump won!” he declared, provoking more cheers. Finchem is unpersuaded by multiple analyses and rulings debunking claims of fraud in Arizona, including a 93-page report issued 10 days before the rally by GOP officials in the state’s largest county. “I look forward to the day that we set aside an irredeemably flawed election,” Finchem continued. “With all the evidence we have, the Arizona election should be decertified with cause by the legislature. … This is how the people can get justice.”

When it was Trump’s turn to speak, he pointed to Finchem seated in the front row. “The next Arizona secretary of state — a man who’s tough and smart and loves our country. A man who you must get elected,” Trump said. “He’ll get to the bottom of everything. Do you think you’ll get to the bottom of it, Mark?” Finchem leaped to his feet and waved two thumbs up.

Finchem, who attended the protest Jan. 6, 2021, in Washington, is a leading example of a new category of candidate drawn to the job: the election deniers, those who dispute Trump’s defeat. If elected to the seat being vacated by Democrat Katie Hobbs, who’s running for Arizona governor, Finchem favors using paper ballots with currency-style protections, making ballot images a public record, and making it easier to audit elections, according to his campaign website and interviews he’s given to conservative media. (He didn’t respond to my requests for an interview.) He’s a strong contender for the post, having raised nearly $700,000 — more than any of the Democratic candidates, and more than all but one of the Republicans, according to state campaign finance records. In mid-February, the congressional Jan. 6 investigation committee subpoenaed Finchem for information on efforts to overturn the election. Finchem responded in a tweet: “Kangaroo court speaks. LOL.”

As of late January, at least 21 election deniers were running for secretary of state in 18 states, according to new research by States United Action, a nonpartisan election protection advocacy group co-chaired by former Republican New Jersey governor Christine Todd Whitman. “It’s important that we pay attention, and early, to the rhetoric about our election system happening in these down-ballot races,” she said in a statement upon releasing the report in early February.

When election denialism gets injected into campaigns for secretary of state, the job itself can be undermined. “It’s certainly okay from a policy perspective to advocate different levels of voter ID or whether people need to request a mail ballot,” says Becker of the Center for Election Innovation & Research. “What we have now is several candidates … who seem to be running on a platform of election denial, on the idea that their role as the state’s chief election officer is not to give voice to the voters of their state, regardless of whether they agree with it or not, but rather to ensure that their preferred candidate takes office. That we’ve never seen before, and to see it on a scale like we are right now, where it’s a feature of their campaign, not a flaw … is an entirely new thing that’s very concerning.”

[BDKJMU]

“And we’ll make sure no one has an opportunity to steal an election AGAIN.”
What election is Brandon referring to? 2016? A freudian slip about 2020 being stolen?

[UNI88]

So does that mean you're waving the white flag on the rogue GOP Sec of State unilaterally overturning an election with this quick pivot to the discusion of ISL?

Even with all the criticism of ISL, you don't see anyone really arguing what you're implying here, that a legislature, following an election, can and will just disregard the election because they don't like the results, and unilaterally substituting their own election results. That's your line of thinking going from JSO's absurd one elected official just changing an election outcome on a whim to you now implying that's what at stake in the Moore v. Harper case, which is such an oversimplification of that case that it completely misses the mark. Take a breath and really decide what you want to argue here and we can go from there. You're like a poster with ADHD, you flit from one thing to the next so quickly you lose your train of thought. We'll wait.

Not at all. They’re both important and connected to a transparent effort to subvert our election system. Meet the the AZ MAGA nominee who was at the J6 rally and is a member of the Oath Keepers. There are similar candidates in 4 other swing states.

I like Democracy and pay attention to obvious threats. Especially the ones that have already been attempted at the legislative and threatened at the SoS levels.

“Ladies and gentlemen, we know it and they know it: Donald Trump won!” he declared, provoking more cheers. Finchem is unpersuaded by multiple analyses and rulings debunking claims of fraud in Arizona, including a 93-page report issued 10 days before the rally by GOP officials in the state’s largest county. “I look forward to the day that we set aside an irredeemably flawed election,” Finchem continued. “With all the evidence we have, the Arizona election should be decertified with cause by the legislature. … This is how the people can get justice.”

When it was Trump’s turn to speak, he pointed to Finchem seated in the front row. “The next Arizona secretary of state — a man who’s tough and smart and loves our country. A man who you must get elected,” Trump said. “He’ll get to the bottom of everything. Do you think you’ll get to the bottom of it, Mark?” Finchem leaped to his feet and waved two thumbs up.

Finchem, who attended the protest Jan. 6, 2021, in Washington, is a leading example of a new category of candidate drawn to the job: the election deniers, those who dispute Trump’s defeat. If elected to the seat being vacated by Democrat Katie Hobbs, who’s running for Arizona governor, Finchem favors using paper ballots with currency-style protections, making ballot images a public record, and making it easier to audit elections, according to his campaign website and interviews he’s given to conservative media. (He didn’t respond to my requests for an interview.) He’s a strong contender for the post, having raised nearly $700,000 — more than any of the Democratic candidates, and more than all but one of the Republicans, according to state campaign finance records. In mid-February, the congressional Jan. 6 investigation committee subpoenaed Finchem for information on efforts to overturn the election. Finchem responded in a tweet: “Kangaroo court speaks. LOL.”

As of late January, at least 21 election deniers were running for secretary of state in 18 states, according to new research by States United Action, a nonpartisan election protection advocacy group co-chaired by former Republican New Jersey governor Christine Todd Whitman. “It’s important that we pay attention, and early, to the rhetoric about our election system happening in these down-ballot races,” she said in a statement upon releasing the report in early February.

When election denialism gets injected into campaigns for secretary of state, the job itself can be undermined. “It’s certainly okay from a policy perspective to advocate different levels of voter ID or whether people need to request a mail ballot,” says Becker of the Center for Election Innovation & Research. “What we have now is several candidates … who seem to be running on a platform of election denial, on the idea that their role as the state’s chief election officer is not to give voice to the voters of their state, regardless of whether they agree with it or not, but rather to ensure that their preferred candidate takes office. That we’ve never seen before, and to see it on a scale like we are right now, where it’s a feature of their campaign, not a flaw … is an entirely new thing that’s very concerning.”

Democrats should agree on November 4, 2024. Declare Donald Trump as the rightful President and allow him to serve the final weeks of his second and final term.

[kalm]

Not at all. They’re both important and connected to a transparent effort to subvert our election system. Meet the the AZ MAGA nominee who was at the J6 rally and is a member of the Oath Keepers. There are similar candidates in 4 other swing states.

I like Democracy and pay attention to obvious threats. Especially the ones that have already been attempted at the legislative and threatened at the SoS levels.

Democrats should agree on November 4, 2024. Declare Donald Trump as the rightful President and allow him to serve the final weeks of his second and final term.

Bing!

[houndawg]

Weak af.

huge difference between being sore over stopping the count early and hanging Mike Pence.

Here we go again with the "they're a lot worse than us" rationalization for poor behavior.

The extreme right and extreme left share a penchant for nitpicking and deflecting. Why don't you try to condemn both sides for their bad behavior rather than trying to rationalize why your side's isn't as bad as the opposing side's?

...no rationalization - the outcome of the two elections was completely different. One candidate abided by the outcome the system arrived at, one didn't. But yes, everybody picking on Jabba, politicians all bad.

[JohnStOnge]

It really is. There's no comparison and the attempts are laughable.

You’re correct. Trump is an amateur and not smart enough to hide his grift. Clinton, Obama, Biden et.al. Are professionals, life long grifters who are much better at hiding their theft behind the guise of “politics”.

No. It's not that. Trump is just worse than they are. He is a total reprobate. He is the most dishonest, corrupt person to get a major Party Presidential Candidate nomination of my lifetime. I suspect he's the most dishonest, corrupt person to do so in the history of the United States. And it's not remotely close. There is no close second.

[BDKJMU]

Hochul trying to lose the NY governor’s race.