Trump's Coup d'état.

[The Great Zaganza]

The US military has made it clear that they think Biden is the legitimate President-elect.
The fact that they put a no-fly zone over his location the moment it was clear that he would win is strong evidence for this.

 

[Trebuchet]

Rudy's claims about a nationwide conspiracy are off the rails.

As is Rudy himself.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Donald Drumpf pardons Michael Flynn.

 

[cosmicaug]

These are elected officials who ought to be thrown out on their ear by voters just for saying what they are saying. This sort of rhetoric is both disconnected from reality and a sign that they don't get this whole democracy thing. Either one of those should be enough for voters to recognize they are dangerous in their positions, but it won't happen.

They get it. Apparently, it's not terribly agreeable to them, but they get it.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

These are elected officials who ought to be thrown out on their ear by voters just for saying what they are saying.

But they won't, because they are giving their voters what they want.

This sort of rhetoric is both disconnected from reality and a sign that they don't get this whole democracy thing.

Neither do the voters.

Either one of those should be enough for voters to recognize they are dangerous in their positions, but it won't happen.

What's really dangerous is that voters put these people in their positions, not because they don't recognize the danger but because they want dangerous people there. They need them to counter the 'real' threat - liberals. If the people they elect don't act dangerously enough they will be replaced - so if those people want to keep their jobs then they need to act dangerously.

Most republicans don't want democracy, they want to get their own way no matter what, and they 'know' it's 'right' so any way they can get it is OK. 70% of republicans 'believe' that the election was stolen from them. That need to 'believe' is the real danger, and the dangerous people they put in power are just a symptom of that need.

 

[trustbutverify]

I watched a couple of minutes of the conference, at what turned out to be the last speech before adjournment.

He quoted Saint Paul, so apparently God is on their side.

This thread has been dominated by coup or not coup discussion, and whoever it was that was talking demonstrated why that conversation is happening. He is encouraging the legislature and the courts to ignore the vote count, and declare Trump the Pennsylvania winner. That's not the same thing as ordering the tanks in and rounding up the opposition leaders at the point of a gun, but it's not hard to understand why the comparisons are made.

ETA: Fortunately, as several people note, it won't succeed. These people will be pointed at and laughed at. What upsets me is that they won't be pointed at and laughed at enough. These are elected officials who ought to be thrown out on their ear by voters just for saying what they are saying. This sort of rhetoric is both disconnected from reality and a sign that they don't get this whole democracy thing. Either one of those should be enough for voters to recognize they are dangerous in their positions, but it won't happen.

Yes, but my point is that it softens up the soil for future efforts in that direction, which I think is extremely dangerous. I'm laughing at these people, but I'm not laughing at what this insanity bodes for the future.

If Trump calculated that he had the leverage to order loyalists enforce his re-election, he'd do it without hesitation.

 

[Abooga]

I don't think it's possible to have a system SO perfect that no one could try to game it or question it.

I think trying to fix things beyond the point where disingenuous people can criticize them is a useless treadmill at BEST and playing right into their plans in reality.

Systems that decide elections are made up of humans and are complex. There is no way to create them that makes them free from made up conspiracy theories.

Heck, running a pizza restaurant isn't free from conspiracy theories. When they're promulgated by the poweholders in a party that speaks for almost half of the residents of a country, facts, real fairness and transparency can never stop that.

Letting disingenuous BS put you on the defensive or trying to placate them is a useless move.

I understand what you´re saying but I fully disagree. Systems that run elections are usually painstakingly open and transparent because "Caesar´s wife must be above suspicion", it´s not enough being "good enough", it has to be exemplary. The answer to any allegation of fraud should always be "look at this system, fraud is impossible", and the system should be simple enough for any average citizen to understand.

As long as there are things like electronic voting, suspicions of cheating will not be as farfetched as they should be. (Postal voting is another can of worms...)

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I understand what you´re saying but I fully disagree. Systems that run elections are usually painstakingly open and transparent because "Caesar´s wife must be above suspicion", it´s not enough being "good enough", it has to be exemplary. The answer to any allegation of fraud should always be "look at this system, fraud is impossible", and the system should be simple enough for any average citizen to understand.

As long as there are things like electronic voting, suspicions of cheating will not be as farfetched as they should be. (Postal voting is another can of worms...)

your trust in the system cannot come from the system alone: something that has to serve millions will always have exploitable weaknesses.


The Trust has to come from believing in the enlightened self-interest of the parties running and observing.
That is why elections are monitored in a bi-partisan manner: we trust that it is in the interest of the Observers to point out irregularities and NOT make up claims.
This goes both ways.

A party that claims fraud where there is none is weakening the system itself, and with it the legitimacy of all its wins, past, present and future.


You might have noticed that the Trump Squad didn't challenge any Senate or House races; that alone should tell you that the accusations are fraudulent.
That is because Trump&co don't care about the legitimacy of the Senate or House votes. And therefore don't care about the legitimacy of the Presidential election, either.

 

[Abooga]

your trust in the system cannot come from the system alone: something that has to serve millions will always have exploitable weaknesses.


The Trust has to come from believing in the enlightened self-interest of the parties running and observing.
That is why elections are monitored in a bi-partisan manner: we trust that it is in the interest of the Observers to point out irregularities and NOT make up claims.
This goes both ways.

A party that claims fraud where there is none is weakening the system itself, and with it the legitimacy of all its wins, past, present and future.


You might have noticed that the Trump Squad didn't challenge any Senate or House races; that alone should tell you that the accusations are fraudulent.
That is because Trump&co don't care about the legitimacy of the Senate or House votes. And therefore don't care about the legitimacy of the Presidential election, either.

Yes, I know all that, as I said before, the fact that Trump didn´t do anything beforehand to try to tackle those possible weaknesses in the system that may permit cheating makes his accusations quite worthless.

But forget Trump, what I´m saying applies anytime, anywhere. And I worry that the right lessons are not being learned from the current controversy.

And also, what kind of observers look at the electronic signals of the electronic voting machines? And are observers present at all times in the postal voting system?

 

[cosmicaug]

You might have noticed that the Trump Squad didn't challenge any Senate or House races; that alone should tell you that the accusations are fraudulent.

To be fair, when they challenged a bunch of districts in Minnesota by mistake (it seems they thought they were looking at Michigan), they did challenge a bunch where they won bigly.

 

[johnny karate]

Truly, just not enough laughing dogs. Had you bothered to read, you might ponder the difference between the mob psychology of tearing down a statue, knowing they can do so without interference et al, versus a lone dough boy talking cheap swagger. Does Captain Comfy Couch have any precedent to believe he will not be interfered with when attacking the ******* US Govt?

I understand perfectly.

When people vandalize a statue, we must soberly consider every possible eventuality, up to and including the notion that America is teetering on the brink of a hellscape of mob rule.

When people threaten violent rebellion against the government, we laugh at them for being fat.

Has it occurred to you that the 3 mil might already be completely docile and honest people, with no allegiance to Trump at all? No, I didn't think so.

Then according to you 100% of Americans are harmless. I’m not sure that math checks out. Particularly when you factor in the roving mobs of statue vandals that are poised to destroy society.

 

[gnome]

But in all the places where we've lawsuits attempted the laws have been shown to be pretty clear, why change what works and has worked in the past.?

This is an example of the insidious manner in which the big lie works, people may not think mass fraud has gone on but think there are areas of concerns.

Don't fall for it. Ask for evidence of significant problems or areas of weakness.

I'm thinking a lot of places where it just says a certain official is to do something, it needs to discuss irregularities... such as "unless ordered to by a court with jurisdiction" and to say what happens if the official refuses to cooperate--such as "in the event (xxx) official does not or cannot do so..." describing where to go from there, and distinguish between them not performing the task because of legal obligation, or not performing the task just because they didn't want to.

 

[Horatius]

Doesn't exactly stick though, see all the torture and likewise being policy. No one actually stood up to that.

I've seen this argument before, but I don't think it's the slam-dunk people think it is.

Ultimately, whether or not someone follows an illegal order comes down to a choice made by the individual. In the case of torture during Gulf War II, lots of those individuals actually believed that the torture was necessary, to stop terrorist attacks. That belief was probably flawed, but is was also strongly motivated by people's emotional reactions to the 9/11 attacks - they really wanted to make people pay for that.

Do we have that kind of emotionally-motivated buy-in for supporting a Trump Coup? I suspect not. And that makes all the difference.

There might be a few in the military who are Trumper enough to support a coup, but I think they'll be heavily out-numbered by those who either aren't Trumpers, or who are Trumpers but value their oath to the Constitution more than their loyalty to Trump.

 

[cosmicaug]

USA Today: Georgia election official certifies Biden victory

Can you imagine a couple of GOP legislator sycophants from MI wasting their political careers by overturning the voters' choice in their state? It's a guaranteed fail move because apparently it isn't allowed under state law.

https://www.yorkdispatch.com/story/news/2020/11/27/mastriano-says-legislature-should-overturn-trump-loss/6440328002/

Wow! So weird that, even when the futility of the gesture is clearer than ever before, this legislator does not seem to be afraid of wasting his political career by overturning the voters' choice in the state! Inconceivable!

 

[cosmicaug]

I've seen this argument before, but I don't think it's the slam-dunk people think it is.

Ultimately, whether or not someone follows an illegal order comes down to a choice made by the individual. In the case of torture during Gulf War II, lots of those individuals actually believed that the torture was necessary, to stop terrorist attacks. That belief was probably flawed, but is was also strongly motivated by people's emotional reactions to the 9/11 attacks - they really wanted to make people pay for that.

Do we have that kind of emotionally-motivated buy-in for supporting a Trump Coup? I suspect not. And that makes all the difference.

There might be a few in the military who are Trumper enough to support a coup, but I think they'll be heavily out-numbered by those who either aren't Trumpers, or who are Trumpers but value their oath to the Constitution more than their loyalty to Trump.

There's always going to be an "emotionally-motivated buy-in". That being said, I suspect that Trump is probably the least popular president with the military (specially given that military folk usually favor Republicans).

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Wow! So weird that, even when the futility of the gesture is clearer than ever before, this legislator does not seem to be afraid of wasting his political career by overturning the voters' choice in the state! Inconceivable!

He's not wasting his career. There's not even any downside for him doing it. The Democrats' response has been to shrug and smugly shake their heads, not actually make any hay of this. He might pick up a couple of crazies who remember him supporting their pumpkinfuhrer, but no one's really going to hold it against him later, so why not? Because it's "eroding the fabric of democracy?" Buddy, have you seen the Republican Party these days?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

https://www.yorkdispatch.com/story/news/2020/11/27/mastriano-says-legislature-should-overturn-trump-loss/6440328002/

Wow! So weird that, even when the futility of the gesture is clearer than ever before, this legislator does not seem to be afraid of wasting his political career by overturning the voters' choice in the state! Inconceivable!

I don't recall I ever said there weren't wackos in state legislatures. In fact, I even mentioned one in my state (Shea) that was as nutty as they come.

This fact you bring to my attention doesn't mean for one second that the state legislatures would follow this lead. And in fact, they are not.

From your link (did you read to the bottom?) :

Republicans control both chambers of the state Legislature, but leaders in the House and Senate have repeatedly rebuffed suggestions that they might move to overturn the results and award Pennsylvania's 20 electors to Trump.

Jason Gottesman, a spokesperson for the House GOP, said Friday he was not aware of Mastriano's effort to have the Legislature seat electors. But, he said, the position of that chamber's Republican leadership remained unchanged.

“Our position on the seating of electors has not changed, and we don’t have a role,” Gottesman said.

That was in the middle. They go on to report on the 'Senate' meeting which was actually a meeting of Trump sycophants in a hotel conference room where they paraded 'witnesses' (I only watched a couple minutes of it) and Trump phoned it in. In the end nothing happened. And one more case went before the Third Circuit which was supposed to be a move to get an appeal before SCOTUS. This is discussed in the 2020 election thread.

Said "this legislator" has no power on his own and did not convince his colleagues to throw their careers out in a futile attempt to keep Trump in power. Trump needs more than PA and the other states have certified their electors.

 

[Craig4]

https://www.yorkdispatch.com/story/news/2020/11/27/mastriano-says-legislature-should-overturn-trump-loss/6440328002/

Wow! So weird that, even when the futility of the gesture is clearer than ever before, this legislator does not seem to be afraid of wasting his political career by overturning the voters' choice in the state! Inconceivable!

The sad thing is that he may not be throwing away his political career. There's a faction in the Republican party that clearly doesn't care about getting the most votes; they care about winning. If this keeps up, there will be a faction of the Democrats who also only care about winning. When that happens, you ain't seen nothing yet.

 

[Mumbles]

The sad thing is that he may not be throwing away his political career. There's a faction in the Republican party that clearly doesn't care about getting the most votes; they care about winning. If this keeps up, there will be a faction of the Democrats who also only care about winning. When that happens, you ain't seen nothing yet.

This faction would be called "the republican party". Thus the wild gerrymandering, the suppression of black/native/young voters, and so forth. It's been more or less obvious for a couple of decades now, when you get down to it - and not very well veiled even before then.

 

[Darat]

And I think you can see why they have been so scared about allowing all those who can vote to vote.