Geez - those numbers are frightening. And not just the GOP voters' support for violence. Didn't expect to see Jews (of all people) support that even at the 10% level.
The numbers in the link are 19% of Republicans and 12% of democrats think they should reject the election if their side loses. There is no indication of how any such rejection would be manifested.
It would be interesting to see if there are results from past surveys that asked this question in 2016 and 2020 (and ideally 2012) to compare and contrast the strength of the relationship between attitudes expressed and manifested action.
All these hypothetical post election possible scenarios are making my head spin. Someone remind me of something Trump has said or done since January 6, that would compel me to believe he should deserve my vote for anything more than Sophomore class president.
1. If Trump wins (even if it's by a sliver), you'll get something like the "pussy hat" march on Washington during the inauguration, but nothing like another J6. The updates to the Electoral Count Act made after 2021 preclude the same kind of shenanigans at the Capitol ("go convince Mike Pence to do the Right Thing") and raises the burden for actually objecting to the count. No more Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz showboating on their own, as a fifth of each chamber must support an objection for it to be sustained. Kamala Harris doesn't rile up supporters to threaten Congress, she's in the Capitol (ministerially) certifying the election she just lost, just as Joe Biden did for Trump in January 2017. You don't see protests or widespread violence like the George Floyd riots, largely because the overlap between the "pussy hat" folks and the Floyd rioters and looters isn't that large.
2. If Harris wins, I don't expect a lot of drama around Washington on Jan. 6 or the inauguration, but I do expect a lot of potential for a lot of mini-January 6ths in the local purple state capitals. You're going to see a lot of pressure on election officials from both interior sources (state legislators aligned with Trump) and exterior sources (guys with guns marching outside threatening to shoot everyone if a Trump-friendly slate is not sent to Washington). We got a preview of this in 2020 in Michigan, Arkansas, Nevada, and Georgia. (I might be missing a few.) Governors in states where the election is expected to be close should be activating the local National Guard to keep the peace and protect the election officials responsible for putting together their State's slate of Electors to the Electoral College.
I was at the Capitol on Jan 20, 2017. There was violence. It was planned. It wasn’t widespread but it was broadcast on all the networks. The broken windows, the burned limo. All coordinated violence. Why does everyone think this won’t happen in the 2024 but at a greater level and intensity?
I think when you mention violence of that sort, I skip to recalling stuff on the scale of what we got on January 6th, BUT ALSO the violence we got in the summer of 2020 in Oregon, Minnesota, and here locally in Chicago. I think THAT violence (which largely served as a cover for looting) is unlikely to occur, as I doubt that a critical mass exists that overlaps with the George Floyd riots and looting AND the kind of folks in Washington on January 20, 2017.
That said, there's a pretty big difference between the folks that showed up largely with bricks and other blunt handheld weapons and the folks in tactical gear and their custom AR-47s and pistols openly displayed. I'm confident in the DC police's ability to handle and manage the former (esp. after 1/20/2017 and the summer of 2020) and much less so in their ability to deal with the latter. I also suspect that among the Leftists who would be inclined to make a show of force in Washington in 2017, there's a good number that will NOT be inclined to go through the trouble, given to what extent they view Harris as pandering to the Israelis on Palestine. There's a decent number of those kinds of Leftists I know here in Chicago, who are walking embodiments of the Horseshoe Theory of politics and view Trump and Harris as more similar than not, while espousing a lot of the same rhetoric I hear from the most committed #MAGA folks (esp. when it comes to the US and Ukraine).
That all said, I do think you are correct that there will be more violence in DC than I expressed in my comment above. Might not be a bad idea to have a very visible show of force on the part of the DC cops and local National Guard units around the city to give anyone contemplating violence a second thought.
"Many would disagree on the actual degree of threat to democracy itself of a second Trump presidency, but I don’t think even the most ardent Trump supporter could mount a believable defense that Trump’s self-pardon would be justified without also pardoning the others who had been convicted."
There's no world in which Trump gets elected and he doesn't pardon ALL of the January 6th criminals. Just one J6er remaining in jail is an admission that day was anything but "perfect" and "peaceful".
When it comes to pardoning Bad People, the worst J6er has nothing on the war criminal Eddie Gallagher whom Trump was more than happy to pardon:
"In a lengthy criminal investigation report, the navy detectives laid out other allegations against Gallagher, including shooting a schoolgirl and elderly man from a sniper’s roost. Members of Alpha Platoon’s Seal Team 7 alarmed by their leader’s conduct said they were initially shut down by military chiefs when they first spoke up, and told their own careers would suffer if they continued to talk about it."
"Eventually, the Navy Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) began an inquiry and the platoon members were called to give evidence."
"'The guy is freaking evil,' special operator first class Craig Miller, one of the platoon’s most experienced members, told investigators in sometimes tearful testimony. 'I think Eddie was proud of it, and that was, like, part of it for him.'"
"Miller said Gallagher, who had the nickname Blade, went on to stage a bizarre 're-enlistment ceremony' over the body of the captive. 'I was listening to it and I was just thinking, like, this is the most disgraceful thing I have ever seen in my life,' he said."
It definitely benefits him personally. It creates a cadre of supporters who owe their freedom him that he can readily deploy for whatever end he likes. (He pardoned them once, he can pardon them again.)
He'd have to be a bigger moron than I think he is to not recognize that.
Let me flip the question around - how does pardoning ALL of the J6ers make Trump's life worse in any way? It's a no-cost, no-time action to pardon everyone. It is actually an easier exercise than picking and choosing who to release, so why would he choose anything other than the path of least resistance in this case? What holds him back?
Come on Steve, really? J6 was simple a "Day of Love." I don't know how you guys on The Racket keep getting this so wrong? And the lies you tell about trump, he did NOTHING wrong. Excuse me while i vomit in my mouth.
I find the defense of what happened that day beyond comprehension. The whole trump being trump argument about all the God-awful crap he spews is tiring. The pretense that J6 was no big deal is far bigger than the BIG LIE that got us there. He should never be allowed anywhere near the White House; J6 should have been the end of it. Nice job mitch.
So to answer your question Steve; no the Democrats won't be trying to stop the election process, not even a little. On the other hand, the cake is baked on trump's actions if he loses. The shit will hit the fan and it will get butt ugly. He's been setting it up for the past 6 months and should he lose he'll turn them loose on yet another "day of love." And yet, i pray he does just that; lose.
By the way...how about that leon musk character buying votes? Gotta love this country and what trump has turned it into.
I think Musk is about to find out that messing with the FEC and SEC is a whole different ballgame than stepping on the toes of the folks running the Pennsylvania Gaming Commission. The former are good at wrist slapping white collar folks - the latter is set up to zealously protect the State's monopoly on the Lottery and cut its teeth going after organized crime.
If Musk is LUCKY, he'll just get a cease and desist for running an illegal and unregistered raffle. If the PA Gaming folks decide to go after him, the sky's the limit, in addition to whatever trouble he'd get for violating federal election law.
I'm not as creative as you younger guys. I know only one way to communicate using the English language. Granted, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania might have legislated language exceptions.
"Dictionary
Data from Oxford Languages
Enter a word
Look it up
raf·fle
[ˈraf(ə)l]
noun
a means of raising money by selling numbered tickets, one or some of which are subsequently drawn at random, the holder or holders of such tickets winning a prize:
Note the sections on prize limits and free tickets.
If PA decides that Elon isn't running a raffle, then he's in the clear. If the State determines that he's running a sweepstakes (no tickets are sold), then there are other rules for him to follow in PA. (Couldn't determine if the requirement that eligible participants register to vote or whether the prize size runs afoul of the local regulations.)
Compliance with these laws in general is non-trivial, as anyone who's tried to set up a marketing promotion can tell you.
Thanks. I never heard of the petition until $1 million came up. I don't know if it was intended to carry any legal weight but if so, it seems such inducements would invalidate the petition. If it was intended just to call attention to a cause, it doesn't seem criminal.
The thing I find contemptible is that the GOP plan to sow doubt about the election results - so as to gain support for another coup attempt - relies on making the system work worse than it needs to.
Example: in Florida mail-in ballots are fully processed with the results held until election day, while in Pennsylvania they cannot start processing mail- in ballots until the morning of election day. This is entirely due to the PA GOP blocking changes to law to allow said processing.
This makes for delays in reporting results, allowing the sowing of uncertainty and doubt about the process. And MAGA will assuredly seize on any delay as being shenanigans rather than inundation.
(This general idea - makes government not work well/efficiently and then attack government for not working well/efficiently - is a long-term strategy for the anti-government rightists, one that I also find contemptible but think should be addressed more fully in a later discussion.)
If Trump wins, and democrats start to organize a j6 event, will Joe Biden offer national guard troops to help protect the Capitol, and will Mike Johnston and the dc mayor turn them down?
If Harris gives a speech to the democrats thronged on the mall, will she say to go up to the Capitol and protest the outcome of the election PEACEFULLY and PATRIOTICALLY?
Why did those police officers commit suicide days after j6? A question to this day that I, for one, would like to have investigated.
Why won't FBI director Christopher Wray ever answer the question as to how many of his officers were on the ground on j6, and if any of them were involved in the rioting? Just a few questions of my own I would like to have answered...
I can't speak to the rest of your predictions, but I will confidently predict that President Biden or Vice President won't sit on their thumbs for a few hours before telling their supporters to stop what they are doing and to go home, when it's clear that an insurrection isn't going to go their way.
And not that you asked, but I also predict that Kamala Harris will certify the election that she lost (forgoing any opportunity to get her base whipped up in the Mall), shutting down any Democratic equivalents of Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz that might pop their heads up in an attempt to try and inherit Harris's base.
It's pretty revealing how all you January 6th Truthers think that it was no big deal and a normal form of politics. So normal that you're surprised when others give you a "nah dawg" when you suggest that another one (but with Democrats!) is just waiting to happen.
I hope so. But doing so implicitly concedes that Trump being in power is not the kind of threat they’ve been saying it is all this time. If they hand over power in the normal, peaceful, way, and crack down on any violence, are they giving permission for Trump to also crack down later?
The last place Trump will look for permission for anything is what the last administration did. After Roberts' presidential immunity ruling, if Trump wants to crack heads, he'll preemptively pardon all the eager folks with power fantasies to go crack heads for him.
If they (Democrats) fail to hand over power and employ some illegal measures to try and stick around in office after losing an election (making the excuse that Trump is just too dangerous to let back in), they're not only proving the #MAGA folks correct that this is just about raw power and not about democracy, the rule of law, or any of that - I also expect them lose the support of the military, then things get REALLY messy.
At that point they lose my support (and the support of a lot of other pro-democracy folks). I don't switch automatically supporting Trump - I start getting my immigration paperwork in order to move to another country that isn't a goddamn banana republic.
> I hope so. But doing so implicitly concedes that Trump being in power is not the kind of threat they’ve been saying it is all this time.
This is at least the second time you've made this line of argument, and it is just disgusting (and insulting). I believe you were called out for it last time, but clearly you've made no effort to understand those who disagree with you--and it is maddeningly frustrating. Hell, I believe even David would vehemently disagree with your point here. At this point, I don't even know why I continue reading anything from you--you're so obtuse!
I'll try one more time, though...
We honestly and genuinely feel that Trump is an existential threat to our democracy. We are doing all we can to inform others of this, and working to defeat him at the ballot box. But if we lose that effort ... what realistically are our options? Your posts imply that if we believe this strongly in Trump's maliciousness, we should be willing to go to extra-legal (and even violent) means to stop him. Maybe that's right, and maybe some will try. But it won't include me (nor, clearly Chris J Karr, based on his response). If we go that route, isn't the legitimacy of our democracy already cooked? Isn't that the "destroy it to save it" approach ... and where does that even leave us?
I'm not a j6 truther, I concede that laws were broken on that day by some in the crowd and I firmly agree with having them prosecuted. Having said that, I will never concede to the lies told about that day by the left. It was NOT an insurrection, it was a riot at best, and while some broke the law, the vast majority who were there that day did not. And I would appreciate you not characterizing what I have posted as "no big deal." I never said that, and I never would. And I didn't suggest that another one might happen "but with democrats," Steve raised the possibility, I was only responding to it.
My apologies for putting words in your mouth about it being "no big deal". Every time the topic comes up, you downplay the character and severity of it. I do believe that if it wasn't an "insurrection", it was a "riot" in support of an ongoing autocoup, which isn't that far from an insurrection for me. Apologies if my imprecise language implied something you didn't mean and if I lumped you in unfairly with the other J6 truthers I deal with who do think it wasn't a big deal.
An autocoup is an interesting term, and whether or not Trump was thinking in those terms, I can't and don't believe our system of government could ever lend itself to such a thing. We have too many checks and balances, too many safeguards embedded within it to pull it off. Here is what I will concede: some in the crowd may have had overthrow on their minds, but they would have to be mad to think they would ever succeed. Trump wasn't one of them, however.
I will admit to a certain ignorance pertaining to those personalities, however, and I believe they have all been prosecuted in some fashion, it's not a crime to speak one's mind on the issues of the day. As a for instance, I challenge any body of law enforcement to come after me when I say that nobody will ever convince me that Joe Biden garnered 16 million more votes than Barack Obama did. It just did not happen. Now, I wouldn't know how to prove it, but in my mind and heart, I know better.
'cause to admit that the intent of the leaders of the group was to overturn the election would mean you have to actually admit that the GOP and Trump are worse than the Democrats - and having to re-evaluate your understanding of reality is just too much for you to handle.
There you go again Steve...it was just another Day of Love. I'm still shocked they only shot one of the violent mob bent on hanging Pence. Oh wait, that never happened did it?
We all watched it with our own eyes. trump belongs nowhere near the seat of power. Name me one other politician from either party who did what trump did and wouldn't be jailed for it?
On second thought don't bother. More whitewashing of his crime is the last thing i need to read.
20% of Republicans say Trump should reject election results and seize power if he loses.
https://x.com/taylorpopielarz/status/1848355955135705380?s=46&t=C9iJuMgMW8XhEBmN0ygDTQ
Geez - those numbers are frightening. And not just the GOP voters' support for violence. Didn't expect to see Jews (of all people) support that even at the 10% level.
The numbers in the link are 19% of Republicans and 12% of democrats think they should reject the election if their side loses. There is no indication of how any such rejection would be manifested.
It would be interesting to see if there are results from past surveys that asked this question in 2016 and 2020 (and ideally 2012) to compare and contrast the strength of the relationship between attitudes expressed and manifested action.
All these hypothetical post election possible scenarios are making my head spin. Someone remind me of something Trump has said or done since January 6, that would compel me to believe he should deserve my vote for anything more than Sophomore class president.
Predictions:
1. If Trump wins (even if it's by a sliver), you'll get something like the "pussy hat" march on Washington during the inauguration, but nothing like another J6. The updates to the Electoral Count Act made after 2021 preclude the same kind of shenanigans at the Capitol ("go convince Mike Pence to do the Right Thing") and raises the burden for actually objecting to the count. No more Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz showboating on their own, as a fifth of each chamber must support an objection for it to be sustained. Kamala Harris doesn't rile up supporters to threaten Congress, she's in the Capitol (ministerially) certifying the election she just lost, just as Joe Biden did for Trump in January 2017. You don't see protests or widespread violence like the George Floyd riots, largely because the overlap between the "pussy hat" folks and the Floyd rioters and looters isn't that large.
2. If Harris wins, I don't expect a lot of drama around Washington on Jan. 6 or the inauguration, but I do expect a lot of potential for a lot of mini-January 6ths in the local purple state capitals. You're going to see a lot of pressure on election officials from both interior sources (state legislators aligned with Trump) and exterior sources (guys with guns marching outside threatening to shoot everyone if a Trump-friendly slate is not sent to Washington). We got a preview of this in 2020 in Michigan, Arkansas, Nevada, and Georgia. (I might be missing a few.) Governors in states where the election is expected to be close should be activating the local National Guard to keep the peace and protect the election officials responsible for putting together their State's slate of Electors to the Electoral College.
https://protectdemocracy.org/work/understanding-the-electoral-count-reform-act-of-2022/
I was at the Capitol on Jan 20, 2017. There was violence. It was planned. It wasn’t widespread but it was broadcast on all the networks. The broken windows, the burned limo. All coordinated violence. Why does everyone think this won’t happen in the 2024 but at a greater level and intensity?
You're right - I'd forgotten about that.
I think when you mention violence of that sort, I skip to recalling stuff on the scale of what we got on January 6th, BUT ALSO the violence we got in the summer of 2020 in Oregon, Minnesota, and here locally in Chicago. I think THAT violence (which largely served as a cover for looting) is unlikely to occur, as I doubt that a critical mass exists that overlaps with the George Floyd riots and looting AND the kind of folks in Washington on January 20, 2017.
That said, there's a pretty big difference between the folks that showed up largely with bricks and other blunt handheld weapons and the folks in tactical gear and their custom AR-47s and pistols openly displayed. I'm confident in the DC police's ability to handle and manage the former (esp. after 1/20/2017 and the summer of 2020) and much less so in their ability to deal with the latter. I also suspect that among the Leftists who would be inclined to make a show of force in Washington in 2017, there's a good number that will NOT be inclined to go through the trouble, given to what extent they view Harris as pandering to the Israelis on Palestine. There's a decent number of those kinds of Leftists I know here in Chicago, who are walking embodiments of the Horseshoe Theory of politics and view Trump and Harris as more similar than not, while espousing a lot of the same rhetoric I hear from the most committed #MAGA folks (esp. when it comes to the US and Ukraine).
That all said, I do think you are correct that there will be more violence in DC than I expressed in my comment above. Might not be a bad idea to have a very visible show of force on the part of the DC cops and local National Guard units around the city to give anyone contemplating violence a second thought.
https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/19/politics/trump-inauguration-protests-womens-march/index.html
"Many would disagree on the actual degree of threat to democracy itself of a second Trump presidency, but I don’t think even the most ardent Trump supporter could mount a believable defense that Trump’s self-pardon would be justified without also pardoning the others who had been convicted."
There's no world in which Trump gets elected and he doesn't pardon ALL of the January 6th criminals. Just one J6er remaining in jail is an admission that day was anything but "perfect" and "peaceful".
When it comes to pardoning Bad People, the worst J6er has nothing on the war criminal Eddie Gallagher whom Trump was more than happy to pardon:
"In a lengthy criminal investigation report, the navy detectives laid out other allegations against Gallagher, including shooting a schoolgirl and elderly man from a sniper’s roost. Members of Alpha Platoon’s Seal Team 7 alarmed by their leader’s conduct said they were initially shut down by military chiefs when they first spoke up, and told their own careers would suffer if they continued to talk about it."
"Eventually, the Navy Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) began an inquiry and the platoon members were called to give evidence."
"'The guy is freaking evil,' special operator first class Craig Miller, one of the platoon’s most experienced members, told investigators in sometimes tearful testimony. 'I think Eddie was proud of it, and that was, like, part of it for him.'"
"Miller said Gallagher, who had the nickname Blade, went on to stage a bizarre 're-enlistment ceremony' over the body of the captive. 'I was listening to it and I was just thinking, like, this is the most disgraceful thing I have ever seen in my life,' he said."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/dec/27/eddie-gallagher-trump-navy-seal-iraq
“There's no world in which Trump gets elected and he doesn't pardon ALL of the January 6th criminals.” I am not convinced of that at all.
In your piece, it's clear you're not convinced.
Can you elaborate why?
Because pardoning them does not benefit Trump personally. It’s that simple.
It definitely benefits him personally. It creates a cadre of supporters who owe their freedom him that he can readily deploy for whatever end he likes. (He pardoned them once, he can pardon them again.)
He'd have to be a bigger moron than I think he is to not recognize that.
Let me flip the question around - how does pardoning ALL of the J6ers make Trump's life worse in any way? It's a no-cost, no-time action to pardon everyone. It is actually an easier exercise than picking and choosing who to release, so why would he choose anything other than the path of least resistance in this case? What holds him back?
Come on Steve, really? J6 was simple a "Day of Love." I don't know how you guys on The Racket keep getting this so wrong? And the lies you tell about trump, he did NOTHING wrong. Excuse me while i vomit in my mouth.
I find the defense of what happened that day beyond comprehension. The whole trump being trump argument about all the God-awful crap he spews is tiring. The pretense that J6 was no big deal is far bigger than the BIG LIE that got us there. He should never be allowed anywhere near the White House; J6 should have been the end of it. Nice job mitch.
So to answer your question Steve; no the Democrats won't be trying to stop the election process, not even a little. On the other hand, the cake is baked on trump's actions if he loses. The shit will hit the fan and it will get butt ugly. He's been setting it up for the past 6 months and should he lose he'll turn them loose on yet another "day of love." And yet, i pray he does just that; lose.
By the way...how about that leon musk character buying votes? Gotta love this country and what trump has turned it into.
I think Musk is about to find out that messing with the FEC and SEC is a whole different ballgame than stepping on the toes of the folks running the Pennsylvania Gaming Commission. The former are good at wrist slapping white collar folks - the latter is set up to zealously protect the State's monopoly on the Lottery and cut its teeth going after organized crime.
If Musk is LUCKY, he'll just get a cease and desist for running an illegal and unregistered raffle. If the PA Gaming folks decide to go after him, the sky's the limit, in addition to whatever trouble he'd get for violating federal election law.
Is there an exchange of cash or is it just an attention getter?
First there was "Sign this petition and get $100", and now it's "Sign this petition and be entered to win $1mil".
The former might technically be legal, the latter depends on sweepstakes laws in PA.
If the PA gaming commission interprets what Elon is doing is a raffle (which includes free tickets), he could be in a world of hurt.
https://www.pacodeandbulletin.gov/Display/pacode?file=%2Fsecure%2Fpacode%2Fdata%2F061%2Fchapter901%2Fs901.741.html
I'm not as creative as you younger guys. I know only one way to communicate using the English language. Granted, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania might have legislated language exceptions.
"Dictionary
Data from Oxford Languages
Enter a word
Look it up
raf·fle
[ˈraf(ə)l]
noun
a means of raising money by selling numbered tickets, one or some of which are subsequently drawn at random, the holder or holders of such tickets winning a prize:
"a raffle ticket" · "a charity raffle"
Here's a better presentation of the fuller law:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/pennsylvania/title-61/part-VII/chapter-901/subchapter-G/raffles
Note the sections on prize limits and free tickets.
If PA decides that Elon isn't running a raffle, then he's in the clear. If the State determines that he's running a sweepstakes (no tickets are sold), then there are other rules for him to follow in PA. (Couldn't determine if the requirement that eligible participants register to vote or whether the prize size runs afoul of the local regulations.)
Compliance with these laws in general is non-trivial, as anyone who's tried to set up a marketing promotion can tell you.
Some additional commentary.
https://electionlawblog.org/?p=146397
Thanks. I never heard of the petition until $1 million came up. I don't know if it was intended to carry any legal weight but if so, it seems such inducements would invalidate the petition. If it was intended just to call attention to a cause, it doesn't seem criminal.
The thing I find contemptible is that the GOP plan to sow doubt about the election results - so as to gain support for another coup attempt - relies on making the system work worse than it needs to.
Example: in Florida mail-in ballots are fully processed with the results held until election day, while in Pennsylvania they cannot start processing mail- in ballots until the morning of election day. This is entirely due to the PA GOP blocking changes to law to allow said processing.
This makes for delays in reporting results, allowing the sowing of uncertainty and doubt about the process. And MAGA will assuredly seize on any delay as being shenanigans rather than inundation.
(This general idea - makes government not work well/efficiently and then attack government for not working well/efficiently - is a long-term strategy for the anti-government rightists, one that I also find contemptible but think should be addressed more fully in a later discussion.)
The updates to the Electoral Count Act help address a lot of this on the federal and state levels.
That said, there's certainly a LOT of room for spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt at the State level, as I mention elsewhere in the thread.
Maybe some other questions to consider:
If Trump wins, and democrats start to organize a j6 event, will Joe Biden offer national guard troops to help protect the Capitol, and will Mike Johnston and the dc mayor turn them down?
If Harris gives a speech to the democrats thronged on the mall, will she say to go up to the Capitol and protest the outcome of the election PEACEFULLY and PATRIOTICALLY?
Why did those police officers commit suicide days after j6? A question to this day that I, for one, would like to have investigated.
Why won't FBI director Christopher Wray ever answer the question as to how many of his officers were on the ground on j6, and if any of them were involved in the rioting? Just a few questions of my own I would like to have answered...
I can't speak to the rest of your predictions, but I will confidently predict that President Biden or Vice President won't sit on their thumbs for a few hours before telling their supporters to stop what they are doing and to go home, when it's clear that an insurrection isn't going to go their way.
And not that you asked, but I also predict that Kamala Harris will certify the election that she lost (forgoing any opportunity to get her base whipped up in the Mall), shutting down any Democratic equivalents of Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz that might pop their heads up in an attempt to try and inherit Harris's base.
It's pretty revealing how all you January 6th Truthers think that it was no big deal and a normal form of politics. So normal that you're surprised when others give you a "nah dawg" when you suggest that another one (but with Democrats!) is just waiting to happen.
I hope so. But doing so implicitly concedes that Trump being in power is not the kind of threat they’ve been saying it is all this time. If they hand over power in the normal, peaceful, way, and crack down on any violence, are they giving permission for Trump to also crack down later?
The last place Trump will look for permission for anything is what the last administration did. After Roberts' presidential immunity ruling, if Trump wants to crack heads, he'll preemptively pardon all the eager folks with power fantasies to go crack heads for him.
If they (Democrats) fail to hand over power and employ some illegal measures to try and stick around in office after losing an election (making the excuse that Trump is just too dangerous to let back in), they're not only proving the #MAGA folks correct that this is just about raw power and not about democracy, the rule of law, or any of that - I also expect them lose the support of the military, then things get REALLY messy.
At that point they lose my support (and the support of a lot of other pro-democracy folks). I don't switch automatically supporting Trump - I start getting my immigration paperwork in order to move to another country that isn't a goddamn banana republic.
> I hope so. But doing so implicitly concedes that Trump being in power is not the kind of threat they’ve been saying it is all this time.
This is at least the second time you've made this line of argument, and it is just disgusting (and insulting). I believe you were called out for it last time, but clearly you've made no effort to understand those who disagree with you--and it is maddeningly frustrating. Hell, I believe even David would vehemently disagree with your point here. At this point, I don't even know why I continue reading anything from you--you're so obtuse!
I'll try one more time, though...
We honestly and genuinely feel that Trump is an existential threat to our democracy. We are doing all we can to inform others of this, and working to defeat him at the ballot box. But if we lose that effort ... what realistically are our options? Your posts imply that if we believe this strongly in Trump's maliciousness, we should be willing to go to extra-legal (and even violent) means to stop him. Maybe that's right, and maybe some will try. But it won't include me (nor, clearly Chris J Karr, based on his response). If we go that route, isn't the legitimacy of our democracy already cooked? Isn't that the "destroy it to save it" approach ... and where does that even leave us?
I'm not a j6 truther, I concede that laws were broken on that day by some in the crowd and I firmly agree with having them prosecuted. Having said that, I will never concede to the lies told about that day by the left. It was NOT an insurrection, it was a riot at best, and while some broke the law, the vast majority who were there that day did not. And I would appreciate you not characterizing what I have posted as "no big deal." I never said that, and I never would. And I didn't suggest that another one might happen "but with democrats," Steve raised the possibility, I was only responding to it.
My apologies for putting words in your mouth about it being "no big deal". Every time the topic comes up, you downplay the character and severity of it. I do believe that if it wasn't an "insurrection", it was a "riot" in support of an ongoing autocoup, which isn't that far from an insurrection for me. Apologies if my imprecise language implied something you didn't mean and if I lumped you in unfairly with the other J6 truthers I deal with who do think it wasn't a big deal.
I'll put $5 down that Cam doesn't think it was an autocoup either.
I always thought that the term "autogolpe" was a lot more fun to say.
And as it pertains to the US: what is an autocoup/autogolpe but an insurrection against the regime that is the US Constitution?
An autocoup is an interesting term, and whether or not Trump was thinking in those terms, I can't and don't believe our system of government could ever lend itself to such a thing. We have too many checks and balances, too many safeguards embedded within it to pull it off. Here is what I will concede: some in the crowd may have had overthrow on their minds, but they would have to be mad to think they would ever succeed. Trump wasn't one of them, however.
Where does John Eastman, Rudy Guilani, and Sydney Powell fit into your internal narrative?
(Not throwing rocks - I'm genuinely curious how your reconcile those folks in your mind.)
I will admit to a certain ignorance pertaining to those personalities, however, and I believe they have all been prosecuted in some fashion, it's not a crime to speak one's mind on the issues of the day. As a for instance, I challenge any body of law enforcement to come after me when I say that nobody will ever convince me that Joe Biden garnered 16 million more votes than Barack Obama did. It just did not happen. Now, I wouldn't know how to prove it, but in my mind and heart, I know better.
'cause to admit that the intent of the leaders of the group was to overturn the election would mean you have to actually admit that the GOP and Trump are worse than the Democrats - and having to re-evaluate your understanding of reality is just too much for you to handle.
Don’t let facts get in your way.
Politics plays the carom on facts like a fielder playing off the Green Giant wall in Fenway Park. Nothing matters but the catch.
There you go again Steve...it was just another Day of Love. I'm still shocked they only shot one of the violent mob bent on hanging Pence. Oh wait, that never happened did it?
We all watched it with our own eyes. trump belongs nowhere near the seat of power. Name me one other politician from either party who did what trump did and wouldn't be jailed for it?
On second thought don't bother. More whitewashing of his crime is the last thing i need to read.