Trump's Coup d'état.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ladewig said:
Why?
Because Trump is not an adult who understands consequences.
Because Trump most likely has a severe mental disorder.
Because Trump really believes he is destined to win everything he attempts.
Because Trump cannot understand any part of this loss.
Because Trump is floundering and panicking.

Pick as many as you like.
Click to expand...

Because Trump's success formula has always been intimidate your enemy with fake lawsuits and violent threats until they give up.
 
cosmicaug said:
Sadly, close to four out of 10 Republicans lending their name to this (with the vast majority of the other 6 out of 10 not speaking out against this) makes it not a fringe group. That the risk of being primaried is perceived as such a problem may be a statement in itself about how this currently represents mainstream Republicanism.

All of this says Trump is not the problem, Trump is a manifestation of the problem. Getting rid of Trump still leaves us with the problem.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure the problem is truly the "mainstream" of Repbulicanism, although the bizarre fringe beliefs are being pulled in that direction. Let me explain my reasoning for those who might not be following it all the way.

I say that 106 legislators signing on to this has to be a result of fear of being "primaried", because there's no way 106 legislators could be this stupid. This lawsuit is absurd. The respectable conservatives who sometimes contribute to this board won't touch it, only the fringe. National Review won't touch it. Romney condemns it. Of those 106 legislators, an awful lot of them made it through law school. They aren't stupid, and they have legal training. They know this lawsuit has zero chance. There are a few people in Congress who are so blinded by ideology that they may as well be stupid, but most of them aren't.

However, they know that there is a hard core of the Republican electorate who demands complete party loyalty, and right now that means Trump loyalty. I don't think it's even a majority of the Republican voters. However, the majority of people don't vote in primary elections. The legislators know that if they are not loyal to Trump, Trump can tweet, "Congressman Smith is a RINO. We need better representation! Vote for Bill Trumpfan, who is a real Republican!", and a lot of people will do it. The majority of the country won't. The majority of the Republican voters probably wouldn't, but there is a chance that the majority of people who show up on a Tuesday to vote in an off year Republican primary just might, so they dare not take that chance.

As a result, the party's mainstream does get pulled to the right, and in this case, worse than that. Trump isn't just the right. He's the mindless version of it, plus a cult of personality figure, and politicians who might be reasonable in their hearts do not dare stand up to him, because they need the votes of his fans.
 
Last edited:
cosmicaug said:
They liked it before in Bush v. Gore (but the argument there didn't involve different states).

By the way, the invocation of 14th Amendment arguments to say that equal protection is violated by how electoral laws get treated in different states is, if followed to its logical conclusion, both an argument for the abolition of the Electoral College and an argument for the federalization of electoral rules and procedures (which I suppose would require multiple constitutional amendments?). Both would be good things.
Click to expand...

Yes they did. Bush v Gore was a strained legal argument and using it as precedent is piling error on top of error.

If we're going to use the 14th Amendment as justification for differing elections laws in other states, how do we resolve not only the EC, but the US Senate?
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
I find this suit incredibly ironic. Since it has always been the so called conservatives screaming about State's rights. They in fact used that argument to keep people of color from voting in the South for more than a century. It has been used against both the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act.

So here we are today with the State of Texas saying the States of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Georgia elections laws violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. WTF? This is the Twilight Zone.
Click to expand...

I agree it's ironic but you can't really examine any pillar of conservativism without finding blatant hypocrisy whenever it's convenient. they're simply saying whatever they think their voters want to hear, and saying whatever they want to hurt their political opponents.

I think this will be a problem if R can manage to get more than 50% of the electorate on board with a platform that is whatever the president says in the moment, which is an ever changing platform based on essentially nothing. I don't think they can though, which is why they pursue avenues of voter suppression and disinformation. and I think many people are starting to wise up to that as well.

People say substance in politics doesn't matter, but I think it does to the extent that it may not matter a lot or to everyone, but it matters enough to enough people.
 
Meadmaker said:
As a result, the party's mainstream does get pulled to the right, and in this case, worse than that. Trump isn't just the right. He's the mindless version of it, plus a cult of personality figure, and politicians who might be reasonable in their hearts do not dare stand up to him, because they need the votes of his fans.
Click to expand...

I feel much relief that most Republicans might be reasonable in their hearts.

ETA: Have I mentioned that I undeuse sarcasm tags?
 
Last edited:
Meadmaker said:
I'm not sure the problem is truly the "mainstream" of Repbulicanism, although the bizarre fringe beliefs are being pulled in that direction. Let me explain my reasoning for those who might not be following it all the way.

I say that 106 legislators signing on to this has to be a result of fear of being "primaried", because there's no way 106 legislators could be this stupid. This lawsuit is absurd. The respectable conservatives who sometimes contribute to this board won't touch it, only the fringe. National Review won't touch it. Romney condemns it. Of those 106 legislators, an awful lot of them made it through law school. They aren't stupid, and they have legal training. They know this lawsuit has zero chance. There are a few people in Congress who are so blinded by ideology that they may as well be stupid, but most of them aren't.

However, they know that there is a hard core of the Republican electorate who demands complete party loyalty, and right now that means Trump loyalty. I don't think it's even a majority of the Republican voters. However, the majority of people don't vote in primary elections. The legislators know that if they are not loyal to Trump, Trump can tweet, "Congressman Smith is a RINO. We need better representation! Vote for Bill Trumpfan, who is a real Republican!", and a lot of people will do it. The majority of the country won't. The majority of the Republican voters probably wouldn't, but there is a chance that the majority of people who show up on a Tuesday to vote in an off year Republican primary just might, so they dare not take that chance.

As a result, the party's mainstream does get pulled to the right, and in this case, worse than that. Trump isn't just the right. He's the mindless version of it, plus a cult of personality figure, and politicians who might be reasonable in their hearts do not dare stand up to him, because they need the votes of his fans.
Click to expand...

I think that's a dangerous gamble for them imo. it's not long odds to say Trump won't be relevant in 2022, and attaching yourself to something like this might be political suicide.
 
dirtywick said:
I think that's a dangerous gamble for them imo. it's not long odds to say Trump won't be relevant in 2022, and attaching yourself to something like this might be political suicide.
Click to expand...
I think you are correct about the former and deluding yourself about the latter (I want to believe you, however).
 
DevilsAdvocate said:
Yeah. Isn't Paxton out of the federal charges and down to state charges. If so, that means he didn't file this meritless claim to get a pardon, but just because he is a jerk.
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/tplohetski/status/1337167620609626112

NEW: FBI agents delivered at least one federal subpoena to the Texas Attorney General's office Wednesday for information in an ongoing investigation involving AG Ken Paxton, three sources confirm, indicating the seriousness with which they are taking allegations against Paxton.

It is not clear what records FBI agents sought. Their visit came on a week when Paxton has been in the national spotlight for his lawsuit concerning election results in four battleground states. He also met with President Trump today.

Former aides accuse Paxton of a number of crimes in his relationship with Austin investor Nate Paul. Paxton has denied any wrongdoing.
Click to expand...

ETA: Quoting the thread.
 
Last edited:
dirtywick said:
I agree it's ironic but you can't really examine any pillar of conservativism without finding blatant hypocrisy whenever it's convenient. they're simply saying whatever they think their voters want to hear, and saying whatever they want to hurt their political opponents.

I think this will be a problem if R can manage to get more than 50% of the electorate on board with a platform that is whatever the president says in the moment, which is an ever changing platform based on essentially nothing. I don't think they can though, which is why they pursue avenues of voter suppression and disinformation. and I think many people are starting to wise up to that as well.

People say substance in politics doesn't matter, but I think it does to the extent that it may not matter a lot or to everyone, but it matters enough to enough people.
Click to expand...

Time and time again, I find myself to be a defender of process. Even processes that I despise. There are hypocrits and cherry pickers on the right and the left. It always amazes me that people for the right reasons want to do the wrong things.

I absolutely hated "democracy" when it made Nixon President. I also subsequently felt that way when Reagan, the Bush's and especially when Trump was sorta kind of democratically elected. I mean sometimes it absolutely sucks. What is it that Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others"?

The bad thing about democracy is sometimes the other guy wins. But it ceases to be one when you are willing, even eager to replace the electorate's will with your own.
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
Since Election Day, State and Federal courts throughout the country have been flooded with frivolous lawsuits aimed at disenfranchising large swaths of voters and undermining the legitimacy of the election. The State of Texas has now added its voice to the cacophony of bogus claims. Texas seeks to invalidate elections in four states for yielding results with which it disagrees. Its request for this Court to exercise its original jurisdiction and then anoint Texas’s preferred candidate for President is legally indefensible and is an afront to principles of constitutional democracy.

What Texas is doing in this proceeding is to ask this Court to reconsider a mass of baseless claims about problems with the election that have already been considered, and rejected, by this Court and other courts. It attempts to exploit this Court’s sparingly used original jurisdiction to relitigate those matters. But Texas obviously lacks standing to bring such claims, which, in any event, are barred by laches, and are moot, meritless, and dangerous. Texas has not suffered harm simply because it dislikes the result of the election, and nothing in the text, history, or structure of the Constitution supports Texas’s view that it can dictate the manner in which four other states run their elections. Nor is thatview grounded in any precedent from this Court. Texas does not seek to have the Court interpret the Constitution, so much as disregard it.

Full response (PDF)
Click to expand...

Bet they had that ready yesterday. :)
 
Minoosh said:
Well this is unfortunate:

OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BILL OF COMPLAINT AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, TEMPROARY RESTRAINING ORDER, OR STAY

ETA: That said, I hope Pa. et al. have the court at "Preliminary Statement."

ETA2: And I'm genuinely curious about whether the SC has ever had a filing that uses the term "bogus."
Click to expand...

I'm not sure you are reading that right. See the highlighted. And look at the top: "In the Supreme Court of the United States".

It is the SCOTUS shutting down the TX AG.

At least that's how I read it.

OK, corrected. But still the "PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, TEMPROARY RESTRAINING ORDER, OR STAY" is what is being opposed to.
 
Last edited:
Minoosh said:
Well this is unfortunate:

OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BILL OF COMPLAINT AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, TEMPROARY RESTRAINING ORDER, OR STAY

ETA: That said, I hope Pa. et al. have the court at "Preliminary Statement."

ETA2: And I'm genuinely curious about whether the SC has ever had a filing that uses the term "bogus."
Click to expand...

Skeptic Ginger said:
I'm not sure you are reading that right. See the highlighted. And look at the top: "In the Supreme Court of the United States".

It is the SCOTUS shutting down the TX AG.

At least that's how I read it.
Click to expand...

No,it is PA's response. But the highlighted part "temporary" is kind of meaningless. The EC convenes on Monday. If the court denies the the temporary injunction they are rejecting it permanently. At least how it affects this specific election.
 
acbytesla said:
Yes they did. Bush v Gore was a strained legal argument and using it as precedent is piling error on top of error.

If we're going to use the 14th Amendment as justification for differing elections laws in other states, how do we resolve not only the EC, but the US Senate?
Click to expand...

I don't think you can use an amendment to overturn another part of the constitution, unless that amendment explicitly repeals it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom