The amount of loyalty Trump still commands even after a disgrace of a presidency, numerous actions that fly directly in the face of what conservatives have said for decades they believe, and a debouched and corrupt personal life is jaw-dropping. The amount of cognitive dissonance necessary for lifelong Republicans (who say they support the Constitution) to continue supporting him is astounding.
His most successful approach is one of "bread and circuses" and will never bring any lasting conservative change because all he cares about is APPEARING to do something. It's something he's done all his life, even in his business. When it comes to this aspect of him I always think about the incident he told about in The Art of the Deal where he told his people to hire a bunch of bulldozers to simply move a lot of dirt around on a construction site because he'd told the company he wanted to partner with that construction had already begun. That's why I can't begin to fathom the arguments of people who say they support him because he's "strong" on the issues they care about. Even if it was true, it shouldn't be acceptable to lifelong Republicans for him to trample the Constitution in order to do what they want him to do.
My conclusion, because it doesn't make any sense otherwise, is that Trump is most likely an antichrist. It's the only way I've been able to satisfactorily explain to myself his continued appeal, the fanatical loyalty he inspires, and the way he's influenced so many to abandon their values without even realizing they're doing so.
The Senate Judiciary Report article is paywalled, but I've seen it elsewhere. I noticed that it said "the majority" report: does that mean only Democrat members of the Committee conducted the investigation, or that only the Dems are willing to report the results?
Here is the link to the majority report. There was a minority report as well, but that doesn't seem to dispute the facts. It just points out that Trump backed off of his plan. Of course, it was a plan that no respectable president would have ever considered.
What could you trust the democrat candidate to do better than Mike Lee? I think you are more concerned with stopping a Trump revival than stopping a constitutional crisis when you waste votes on losers. You are nit-picking at what Republicans did not do rather than what they do.
When the set of actions in the "did not do" bin includes "did not stand up to defend our Constitutional system when it was under threat", that's enough for folks like myself worried that we haven't taken the right steps after Jan. 6 and prevented the next one. On that front, that is something that I can trust a Democrat to do better than Mike Lee.
And if Utah somehow did elect a Democratic Senator, by virtue of the Utah political landscape, they'd be more like Arizona's Kyrsten Sinema (who is doing a marvelous job keeping some of the Democrats' worst traits in check) than NY's Kirsten Gillibrand. If the GOP candidate insists on being pro-insurrection, then they have a high - if not insurmountable - trust barrier to clear that's leagues higher than policy wall a moderate Democrat would have to scale to convince GOP voters that she's both pro-America (as it's been until Jan. 6) and won't be a Chuck Schumer rubber stamp.
How was the Constitutional system under threat? Some members of objected to certifying the votes in a few states. There was a totally constitutional debate and vote on the matter. What else did you expect from Mike Lee and other Republicans?
A few hotheads accompanied by a few protesting tourists trespassed in the Capitol. Not the first or the worst disturbance of congressional proceedings.
The rule of law is also a part of our Constitutional system and it was completely blown away by rioters, looters, arsonists and murderers in democrat governed cities across the nation. The democrats did nothing to protect the Constitutional system. They allowed the thugs to go free. The current VP contributed to bail them out. Hundreds of businesses and means of income were destroyed. I can only assume you want more of the same.
"How was the Constitutional system under threat? Some members of objected to certifying the votes in a few states. There was a totally constitutional debate and vote on the matter. What else did you expect from Mike Lee and other Republicans?"
I expected and continue to expect Mike Lee and the rest of the GOP to stand up for our system of government and to support the peaceful transition of power when that is supposed to happen.
In defense of Senator Lee, he was on the right side of history on January 6th when he refused to go along with the rest of his GOP colleagues in attempting to do something other than count the electors submitted by each state (let's also note that NO state submitted an alternative slate of electors for counting):
"While it is true that legitimate concerns have been raised with regard to how some of the key battleground states conducted their Presidential elections, this is not the end of the story."
"We each have to remember that we have sworn an oath to uphold, protect, and defend this document, written nearly two-and-a-half centuries ago by wise men raised up by God to that very purpose. That document makes clear what our role is and what it isn’t. It makes clear who does what when it comes to deciding presidential elections. You see, because in our system of government, presidents are not directly elected. They are chosen by presidential electors."
"The Constitution makes very clear under Article II, Section I that the states shall appoint presidential electors according to procedures that their legislatures develop."
"Then comes the Twelfth Amendment. It explains what we’re doing here today, here in the Capitol. It explains that the President of the Senate, the Vice President of the United States, shall open the ballots and the votes shall then be counted. It is those words that confine, define, and constrain every scrap of authority that we have in this process."
"Our job is to open and then count. Open, then count. That’s it. That’s all there is."[1, 2]
Unfortunately, post-Jan. 6, the backbone that Senator Lee showed after the attack on the Capitol has been absent as he failed to vote to convict Trump in his second impeachment, despite having knowledge of what Trump was trying to pull off[3] (see the Eastman memo[4]), and has remained part of the GOP obstruction into honestly accounting for what happened on that day[5], breaking with his fellow Utah Senator Romney by voting against to convene an independent bi-partisan commission to look into what happened.
On January 6th, the Mike Lee that showed up to speak against the attempts to overturn the election was a Senator that deserved support from both Democratic and Republican Utahans. The Mike Lee that's been running around since then has demonstrated that he'd rather bury his head in the sand and pretend that Jan. 6 didn't happen, instead of standing firm to support the work that guarantees that a similar incident doesn't happen again. Utah deserves better than today's Mike Lee.
Come on, man. Can you really say that questioning the legitimacy of votes in some localities is unjustified? Is it true that far more damage was done in riots and condoned in democrat governed areas? Joe Biden assumed the presidency without a major incident after the election was confirmed. The system worked and now the Biden administration is working to make whole the losses suffered by their minions in the violence they created. They are also working hard to refill the coffers of the democrat governed areas that spent beyond their means and struck fiscally irresponsible bargains with public employee unions.
They are also working diligently at long-term replacement of voters in more conservative states with socialist leaning immigrants who are largely illegal - at least for now. Attempting to replace Republicans with equally undesirable or worse democrats is irrational. The only reason seems to be your hatred of
Donald Trump. Otherwise you could articulate useful accomplishments by the democrats currently in charge.
The Electoral Count Act sets a "safe harbor" deadline for states to certify their electors on December 8. That's been the way it is for around 130 years[1]. I have ZERO issue with folks questioning the legitimacy of the votes or the process before that date. AFTER that date, the electors are locked in and the election's effectively finalized. That's been our process for over a century, and Trump and his team did everything in their power to circumvent that process.
If Republicans or Democrats don't like those laws and rules of the election, they can change it (it's federal law, but not Constitutional law). However, that's not what happened at all.
Thanks for the link. I still do not see how there was a threat to the constitution. There were objections to the election that were voted down. I suppose it was more grandstanding - much like congressional hearings.
And note that if Biden attempts to do the same thing his turn, I'll be first in line to accuse him of attempting to carry out a coup via an insurrection. The only way Trump is relevant here isn't because I think he's a terrible human being, but rather that he proved that he's a terrible human being by being the first to try and circumvent the process we've been following, because he thinks for some reason that he's exempt from the rules the rest of us follow. I don't abhor him because his last name is Trump, I abhor him because he continually proves what a garbage human being he is. I have VERY similar feelings about Hunter Biden, but Nepotism Hunter isn't anywhere near the levers of power, so I'm much less worried about him than the Trumps.
My guess is McMullin’s vote share in an election where Trump isn’t on the ballot, will be in the single digits given the dynamics of a midterm election where the Democrats will be playing defense nationwide. Utah has more Trump skeptical conservatives than any other state. But since 2016, the McMullin vote has split, with many of his voters having voted for Trump in 2020. Others voted for Biden that same year. McMullin seems to have a draw for disaffected moderate(and a few conservatives too) Republicans and moderate to conservatives Democrats, while many conservatives(Both Trump and Trump-skeptical) in UT either consider him a nothing person or find him repulsive. If McMullin was running in a year like 2016(where he didn’t have a track record of commentary that leaned left) , he might pull a more substantial share of the vote like he did for his independent Presidential bid(21.5 percent in UT). Overall, my money is on Mike Lee winning handily(though maybe with a slightly reduced vote share) as expected in a solidly red state during a midterm with a GOP tailwind. These are just my political guesstimations and doesn’t reflect my own views on either Mike Lee or Evan McMullin.
With that said, if I still lived in Utah I’d probably do a write-in vote or see if there is any other independent candidate out there worth considering. I probably would vote for Mike Lee in the unlikely event the race was at a tipping point due to a major spoiler effect. I wasn’t and am not a fan at all of Evan McMullin, and obviously found Trump unacceptable, so I did a write-in protest vote in 2016. I ended up doing a protest write-in in 2020 as well. As for Mike Lee, he hasn’t really done much to elicit a strong reaction from me, one way or the other. Though I’d still lean to doing a non McMullin independent vote, just out of my general and current disdain for the GOP as a whole today.
Anyways those are just my two cents. To each their own, and I won’t criticize anyone for how they vote in 2022. I’m in a state where the GOP is considerably more Trumpy, so I’ll have some major figuring out to do as to how I’ll vote.
Mr. Thornton, I couldn't have written it better myself. I voted for Mr. McMullin in 2016 for the same reason you did. And personally, if I were a Utah resident; or even better, if he were running in the Wisconsin primary against Senator Ron Johnson --who has gone off the conservative rails since 2016 and unequivocally joined the Trump Cult circus parade (I enthusiastically supported him his first two times around, but now he disgusts me)-- I'd vote for McMullin as my candidate in a New York minute. My instincts tell me he can be trusted. Unfortunately, honesty and principled behavior doesn't go very far in today's political jungle.
The amount of loyalty Trump still commands even after a disgrace of a presidency, numerous actions that fly directly in the face of what conservatives have said for decades they believe, and a debouched and corrupt personal life is jaw-dropping. The amount of cognitive dissonance necessary for lifelong Republicans (who say they support the Constitution) to continue supporting him is astounding.
His most successful approach is one of "bread and circuses" and will never bring any lasting conservative change because all he cares about is APPEARING to do something. It's something he's done all his life, even in his business. When it comes to this aspect of him I always think about the incident he told about in The Art of the Deal where he told his people to hire a bunch of bulldozers to simply move a lot of dirt around on a construction site because he'd told the company he wanted to partner with that construction had already begun. That's why I can't begin to fathom the arguments of people who say they support him because he's "strong" on the issues they care about. Even if it was true, it shouldn't be acceptable to lifelong Republicans for him to trample the Constitution in order to do what they want him to do.
My conclusion, because it doesn't make any sense otherwise, is that Trump is most likely an antichrist. It's the only way I've been able to satisfactorily explain to myself his continued appeal, the fanatical loyalty he inspires, and the way he's influenced so many to abandon their values without even realizing they're doing so.
The Senate Judiciary Report article is paywalled, but I've seen it elsewhere. I noticed that it said "the majority" report: does that mean only Democrat members of the Committee conducted the investigation, or that only the Dems are willing to report the results?
Here is the link to the majority report. There was a minority report as well, but that doesn't seem to dispute the facts. It just points out that Trump backed off of his plan. Of course, it was a plan that no respectable president would have ever considered.
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Interim%20Staff%20Report%20FINAL.pdf
Thanks. I haven't seen even a mention of the report by any GOP member, and it's not likely that anyone in Conservative Inc. will ask about it.
What could you trust the democrat candidate to do better than Mike Lee? I think you are more concerned with stopping a Trump revival than stopping a constitutional crisis when you waste votes on losers. You are nit-picking at what Republicans did not do rather than what they do.
When the set of actions in the "did not do" bin includes "did not stand up to defend our Constitutional system when it was under threat", that's enough for folks like myself worried that we haven't taken the right steps after Jan. 6 and prevented the next one. On that front, that is something that I can trust a Democrat to do better than Mike Lee.
And if Utah somehow did elect a Democratic Senator, by virtue of the Utah political landscape, they'd be more like Arizona's Kyrsten Sinema (who is doing a marvelous job keeping some of the Democrats' worst traits in check) than NY's Kirsten Gillibrand. If the GOP candidate insists on being pro-insurrection, then they have a high - if not insurmountable - trust barrier to clear that's leagues higher than policy wall a moderate Democrat would have to scale to convince GOP voters that she's both pro-America (as it's been until Jan. 6) and won't be a Chuck Schumer rubber stamp.
How was the Constitutional system under threat? Some members of objected to certifying the votes in a few states. There was a totally constitutional debate and vote on the matter. What else did you expect from Mike Lee and other Republicans?
A few hotheads accompanied by a few protesting tourists trespassed in the Capitol. Not the first or the worst disturbance of congressional proceedings.
The rule of law is also a part of our Constitutional system and it was completely blown away by rioters, looters, arsonists and murderers in democrat governed cities across the nation. The democrats did nothing to protect the Constitutional system. They allowed the thugs to go free. The current VP contributed to bail them out. Hundreds of businesses and means of income were destroyed. I can only assume you want more of the same.
"How was the Constitutional system under threat? Some members of objected to certifying the votes in a few states. There was a totally constitutional debate and vote on the matter. What else did you expect from Mike Lee and other Republicans?"
I expected and continue to expect Mike Lee and the rest of the GOP to stand up for our system of government and to support the peaceful transition of power when that is supposed to happen.
In defense of Senator Lee, he was on the right side of history on January 6th when he refused to go along with the rest of his GOP colleagues in attempting to do something other than count the electors submitted by each state (let's also note that NO state submitted an alternative slate of electors for counting):
"While it is true that legitimate concerns have been raised with regard to how some of the key battleground states conducted their Presidential elections, this is not the end of the story."
"We each have to remember that we have sworn an oath to uphold, protect, and defend this document, written nearly two-and-a-half centuries ago by wise men raised up by God to that very purpose. That document makes clear what our role is and what it isn’t. It makes clear who does what when it comes to deciding presidential elections. You see, because in our system of government, presidents are not directly elected. They are chosen by presidential electors."
"The Constitution makes very clear under Article II, Section I that the states shall appoint presidential electors according to procedures that their legislatures develop."
"Then comes the Twelfth Amendment. It explains what we’re doing here today, here in the Capitol. It explains that the President of the Senate, the Vice President of the United States, shall open the ballots and the votes shall then be counted. It is those words that confine, define, and constrain every scrap of authority that we have in this process."
"Our job is to open and then count. Open, then count. That’s it. That’s all there is."[1, 2]
Unfortunately, post-Jan. 6, the backbone that Senator Lee showed after the attack on the Capitol has been absent as he failed to vote to convict Trump in his second impeachment, despite having knowledge of what Trump was trying to pull off[3] (see the Eastman memo[4]), and has remained part of the GOP obstruction into honestly accounting for what happened on that day[5], breaking with his fellow Utah Senator Romney by voting against to convene an independent bi-partisan commission to look into what happened.
On January 6th, the Mike Lee that showed up to speak against the attempts to overturn the election was a Senator that deserved support from both Democratic and Republican Utahans. The Mike Lee that's been running around since then has demonstrated that he'd rather bury his head in the sand and pretend that Jan. 6 didn't happen, instead of standing firm to support the work that guarantees that a similar incident doesn't happen again. Utah deserves better than today's Mike Lee.
[1] https://www.lee.senate.gov/2021/1/sen-lee-speaks-on-counting-electoral-votes
[2] https://www.deseret.com/utah/2021/1/5/22215157/donald-trump-election-fraud-certify-congress-mike-lee-john-curtis-electoral-college-angry-biden
[3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/10/06/how-you-beat-trump-loyaltist-utah/
[4] https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/21/politics/read-eastman-memo/index.html
[5] https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2021/05/28/gop-blocks-bipartisan/
Come on, man. Can you really say that questioning the legitimacy of votes in some localities is unjustified? Is it true that far more damage was done in riots and condoned in democrat governed areas? Joe Biden assumed the presidency without a major incident after the election was confirmed. The system worked and now the Biden administration is working to make whole the losses suffered by their minions in the violence they created. They are also working hard to refill the coffers of the democrat governed areas that spent beyond their means and struck fiscally irresponsible bargains with public employee unions.
They are also working diligently at long-term replacement of voters in more conservative states with socialist leaning immigrants who are largely illegal - at least for now. Attempting to replace Republicans with equally undesirable or worse democrats is irrational. The only reason seems to be your hatred of
Donald Trump. Otherwise you could articulate useful accomplishments by the democrats currently in charge.
The Electoral Count Act sets a "safe harbor" deadline for states to certify their electors on December 8. That's been the way it is for around 130 years[1]. I have ZERO issue with folks questioning the legitimacy of the votes or the process before that date. AFTER that date, the electors are locked in and the election's effectively finalized. That's been our process for over a century, and Trump and his team did everything in their power to circumvent that process.
If Republicans or Democrats don't like those laws and rules of the election, they can change it (it's federal law, but not Constitutional law). However, that's not what happened at all.
[1] https://www.npr.org/2020/12/08/942288226/bidens-victory-cemented-as-states-reach-deadline-for-certifying-vote-tallies
Thanks for the link. I still do not see how there was a threat to the constitution. There were objections to the election that were voted down. I suppose it was more grandstanding - much like congressional hearings.
And note that if Biden attempts to do the same thing his turn, I'll be first in line to accuse him of attempting to carry out a coup via an insurrection. The only way Trump is relevant here isn't because I think he's a terrible human being, but rather that he proved that he's a terrible human being by being the first to try and circumvent the process we've been following, because he thinks for some reason that he's exempt from the rules the rest of us follow. I don't abhor him because his last name is Trump, I abhor him because he continually proves what a garbage human being he is. I have VERY similar feelings about Hunter Biden, but Nepotism Hunter isn't anywhere near the levers of power, so I'm much less worried about him than the Trumps.
My guess is McMullin’s vote share in an election where Trump isn’t on the ballot, will be in the single digits given the dynamics of a midterm election where the Democrats will be playing defense nationwide. Utah has more Trump skeptical conservatives than any other state. But since 2016, the McMullin vote has split, with many of his voters having voted for Trump in 2020. Others voted for Biden that same year. McMullin seems to have a draw for disaffected moderate(and a few conservatives too) Republicans and moderate to conservatives Democrats, while many conservatives(Both Trump and Trump-skeptical) in UT either consider him a nothing person or find him repulsive. If McMullin was running in a year like 2016(where he didn’t have a track record of commentary that leaned left) , he might pull a more substantial share of the vote like he did for his independent Presidential bid(21.5 percent in UT). Overall, my money is on Mike Lee winning handily(though maybe with a slightly reduced vote share) as expected in a solidly red state during a midterm with a GOP tailwind. These are just my political guesstimations and doesn’t reflect my own views on either Mike Lee or Evan McMullin.
With that said, if I still lived in Utah I’d probably do a write-in vote or see if there is any other independent candidate out there worth considering. I probably would vote for Mike Lee in the unlikely event the race was at a tipping point due to a major spoiler effect. I wasn’t and am not a fan at all of Evan McMullin, and obviously found Trump unacceptable, so I did a write-in protest vote in 2016. I ended up doing a protest write-in in 2020 as well. As for Mike Lee, he hasn’t really done much to elicit a strong reaction from me, one way or the other. Though I’d still lean to doing a non McMullin independent vote, just out of my general and current disdain for the GOP as a whole today.
Anyways those are just my two cents. To each their own, and I won’t criticize anyone for how they vote in 2022. I’m in a state where the GOP is considerably more Trumpy, so I’ll have some major figuring out to do as to how I’ll vote.
Mr. Thornton, I couldn't have written it better myself. I voted for Mr. McMullin in 2016 for the same reason you did. And personally, if I were a Utah resident; or even better, if he were running in the Wisconsin primary against Senator Ron Johnson --who has gone off the conservative rails since 2016 and unequivocally joined the Trump Cult circus parade (I enthusiastically supported him his first two times around, but now he disgusts me)-- I'd vote for McMullin as my candidate in a New York minute. My instincts tell me he can be trusted. Unfortunately, honesty and principled behavior doesn't go very far in today's political jungle.