If they did it would be part of the democratic process our forefathers put into place.
That worked out so well last time. None of the firearms have magazines, a couple are ROTM, maybe even props.
If they did it would be part of the democratic process our forefathers put into place.
DMC: did you ever find any receipts for your claim I call everyone who disagrees with me a Trump ?
Did you even find one?
DMC going full candy and nuts
How much of it was legal?
"the court stepped in". That's a bit misleading.. It went to the supreme court. Gore's team kept fighting the results. I don't blame them, there's provisions in the election law to allow it and the courts are there to interpret those laws. It's part of the election process, but it's not really about democracy. It's about who has their people placed in the courts. This is why "pack the court" means anything. Judges are not robots.like what? gore wanted hand recount in florida. the court stepped in and stopped it. there were no follow up suits, gore conceded immediately following the SCOTUS ruling, and there were no formal objections to the certification.
They were trying to overturn the ruling of the canvassing board, then to overturn the ruling of the lower courts. All these rulings were about the results of the election. You can instead say "nuh uh it was about the counts" but it's the same thing.
what is this "trying to overturn " that you claim was going on?
Clinton wasn't the POTUS. (Trump president, not Clinton, etc..)again. clinton conceded the day after the election. there were no formal objections during the certification process. people saying there was russian interference is not the same as trying to overturn the election.
Clinton pushed the idea that a duly elected POTUS wasn't duly elected. Others in her party did the same. They called into question the integrity of the democratic process, and in doing so (because they lost), have illustrated that democracy only seems to exist after you've won, as obviously it suddenly began to exist after the 2020 election so that it could be attacked on January 6th. Quite the anomaly.
No one said anything about celebrities. Lewis was a rep, not a celebrity. Clinton was the dem candidate, not a celebrity. Even Biden said Trump was not a legitimate POTUS. Just face it, when a side loses (and someone always does) the other side claims the process is rigged. It happens in team sports more and more, and it happens in politics. Rigged systems are not democratic. If they aren't rigged, then no one believes the system is democratic so you have to wonder why suddenly they believe a non-existing democracy was attacked.were there random celebrities trying to convince the electors to vote against trump? sure. but no real effort by anybody with the power to do so
Never said it affected votes.
first, that's not what democracy means
second, the investigation wasn't even known to the public until after the election, so it had no impact on votes
third, please provide a citation that the president launched that investigation
What's True
Under the Obama administration, the FBI launched an investigation into the Trump campaign's relationship with Russian operatives — a covert operation at the time that required the bureau to request court approval to secretly monitor Carter Page, a former adviser to Trump. -Snopes
Oh now still ting yellow is going to tell me what his professor said democracy means.
"DMC thinks"
still waiting for receipts. got any?
in b4
"I don't do fetch missions"
You need to put trademark logo on some of those, those are mine. Get your own. Some are Dale's. Stop stealing his . Get your own . I got my own . Stop stealing it.
so, I called derp an idiot. guilty as charged.
and I did use the word , not at Nathan89, but restating something he said that included the word .
Let us proceed
Ergo, DMC's claim that I call "everyone who disagrees (with me) a Trump " is not only way off base, it's completely mistaken. There's not a single example of me doing so.
I'm gonna keep making fun of your highly cliched mannerisms.
Enjoy!
none of it. thats why all the lawsuits failed. was trump asking secretaries of states/governors to find him votes legal? right now thats the subject of a criminal investigation. was the jan 6 insurrection legal? no.
the 2000 election is an incredibly complicated story. under florida law, after the statewide machine recount, because the margin was so thin (less than 600 votes for the state), gore was en led to have manual (hand) recounts on a county by county basis, which he requested from 4 counties. bush sued to stop those recounts in federal court and lost. when it was clear that some of the counties were not going to finish their recounts by the deadline, that went to court and ultimately the florida supreme court ruled that the recounts could continue. after a separate dispute, the florida supreme court made another ruling, this time that the recount results must be made part of the official state results. this is what bush appealed to the supreme court"the court stepped in". That's a bit misleading.. It went to the supreme court. Gore's team kept fighting the results. I don't blame them, there's provisions in the election law to allow it and the courts are there to interpret those laws. It's part of the election process, but it's not really about democracy. It's about who has their people placed in the courts. This is why "pack the court" means anything. Judges are not robots.
in the meantime, the florida secretary of state (who was co-chair of bush's florida campaign) certified the election results even though 2 of the county recounts were incomplete. gore then issued a formal election challenge on those grounds.
florida' secretary of state then certified bush as the winner before the recounts were concluded and therefore did not incorporate the results from some of the recounts into the election results. gore therefore sought a formal election contest and the florida supreme court ruled that the recounted results must be factored into florida's official count. the florida supreme court ultimately ruled that using only 4 hand recounted counties was inappropriate, and ordered a statewide hand recount for all "undervote" ballots.
the US supreme court then made 2 rulings. one was a 7-2 ruling that the 4 county-wide recounts were uncons utional because there was no uniform standard of review for ballots between counties. the second was a 5-4 ruling... which ruled that there was no time to set up a state-wide standard and that therefore the recounts must stop.
this is not remotely similar to trump/biden. trump got literally every recount he was en led to, including full hand recount of georgia, and partial hand recount in wisconsin. bush/gore wasn't about vague allegations of fraud meant to invalidate vote counts, but was an attempt to secure a recount of results
if you are going to claim that a request for a recount is the same as what was sought in 2020 then you are out of your mind. in 2020 trump got all kinds of audits/recounts in various states and counties. bush/gore was literally about trying to recount 4 counties in one state.They were trying to overturn the ruling of the canvassing board, then to overturn the ruling of the lower courts. All these rulings were about the results of the election. You can instead say "nuh uh it was about the counts" but it's the same thing.
never claimed otherwise. weird flexClinton wasn't the POTUS. (Trump president, not Clinton, etc..)
clinton conceded the day after the election and never issued any form of election contest or legal action attempting to overturn anythingClinton pushed the idea that a duly elected POTUS wasn't duly elected. Others in her party did the same. They called into question the integrity of the democratic process, and in doing so (because they lost), have illustrated that democracy only seems to exist after you've won, as obviously it suddenly began to exist after the 2020 election so that it could be attacked on January 6th. Quite the anomaly.
lip service is very different from actually objecting to or challenging the results.No one said anything about celebrities. Lewis was a rep, not a celebrity. Clinton was the dem candidate, not a celebrity. Even Biden said Trump was not a legitimate POTUS. Just face it, when a side loses (and someone always does) the other side claims the process is rigged. It happens in team sports more and more, and it happens in politics. Rigged systems are not democratic. If they aren't rigged, then no one believes the system is democratic so you have to wonder why suddenly they believe a non-existing democracy was attacked.
then how was the investigation an attack on democracy?Never said it affected votes.
this does not say that obama, the president, launched any investigationWhat's True
Under the Obama administration, the FBI launched an investigation into the Trump campaign's relationship with Russian operatives — a covert operation at the time that required the bureau to request court approval to secretly monitor Carter Page, a former adviser to Trump. -Snopes
dont need a professor. we can appeal to dictionaries.Oh now still ting yellow is going to tell me what his professor said democracy means.
you said the fact there was an investigation launched into a candidate and followed it with "democracy my ass"
please, tell me how the existence of an investigation contradicts the notion that this is a democracy?
So they failed, democracy and the legal system working as expected. Nothing was compromised. Trespassing is never legal but the system was able to absorb it.
I know. Several courts were involved in the process, and each side was trying to do anything in their legal power to win. Democracy was in the hands of the courts.the 2000 election is an incredibly complicated story. under florida law, after the statewide machine recount, because the margin was so thin (less than 600 votes for the state), gore was en led to have manual (hand) recounts on a county by county basis, which he requested from 4 counties. bush sued to stop those recounts in federal court and lost. when it was clear that some of the counties were not going to finish their recounts by the deadline, that went to court and ultimately the florida supreme court ruled that the recounts could continue. after a separate dispute, the florida supreme court made another ruling, this time that the recount results must be made part of the official state results. this is what bush appealed to the supreme court
I know the story.in the meantime, the florida secretary of state (who was co-chair of bush's florida campaign) certified the election results even though 2 of the county recounts were incomplete. gore then issued a formal election challenge on those grounds.
Sounds like they all got every recount they were "en led to", per the supreme court.florida' secretary of state then certified bush as the winner before the recounts were concluded and therefore did not incorporate the results from some of the recounts into the election results. gore therefore sought a formal election contest and the florida supreme court ruled that the recounted results must be factored into florida's official count. the florida supreme court ultimately ruled that using only 4 hand recounted counties was inappropriate, and ordered a statewide hand recount for all "undervote" ballots.
the US supreme court then made 2 rulings. one was a 7-2 ruling that the 4 county-wide recounts were uncons utional because there was no uniform standard of review for ballots between counties. the second was a 5-4 ruling... which ruled that there was no time to set up a state-wide standard and that therefore the recounts must stop.
this is not remotely similar to trump/biden. trump got literally every recount he was en led to, including full hand recount of georgia, and partial hand recount in wisconsin. bush/gore wasn't about vague allegations of fraud meant to invalidate vote counts, but was an attempt to secure a recount of results
Not the same but another indication that democracy only goes as far as you can push it through the judicial process. It doesn't matter what the people vote for, it only matters what you can certify and win in court.if you are going to claim that a request for a recount is the same as what was sought in 2020 then you are out of your mind. in 2020 trump got all kinds of audits/recounts in various states and counties. bush/gore was literally about trying to recount 4 counties in one state.
not a flex, just reminding you that Clinton wasn't in office after the election so did not have the power to do anything.never claimed otherwise. weird flex
She had Jill Stein do it on her behalf. Hillary was too busy licking her wounds and without POTUS power to move mountains, she couldn't do anything. She held no office at the time.clinton conceded the day after the election and never issued any form of election contest or legal action attempting to overturn anything
Only in how much power they hold to actually do anything. If they are calling the POTUS illegitimate and they do not take action, it's most likely because they lack the power to do so and would like to remain wealthy.
lip service is very different from actually objecting to or challenging the results.
Where did I say it was an attack on democracy? That's not my , that's someone else's .then how was the investigation an attack on democracy?
The investigation shows that democracy is only a façade. While Hillary was being excused for her email scandal, Trump was being investigated. We don't need to rehash the facts surrounding the events.
It's long been held (especially here) that what happens under your watch, especially by your administration, is your doing. You cannot duck out of that.this does not say that obama, the president, launched any investigation
Fine, let's use the dictionary:dont need a professor. we can appeal to dictionaries.
democracy
[ dih-mok-ruh-see ]SHOW IPA
See synonyms for democracy on Thesaurus.com
noun, plural de·moc·ra·cies.
government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
a state having such a form of government:
The United States and Canada are democracies.
a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.
political or social equality; democratic spirit.
the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power.
At any time either elected official acted to do anything, they were acting as "elected agents" so you cannot say that Trump was less of an elected agent than was Obama. The question is whether or not they acted in the best interest of those who elected them (and the country as a whole). When a sitting POTUS uses the power of office to launch an investigation into a presidential candidate (and don't be so naive as to pretend you don't believe the POTUS knew the GOP candidate was being investigated) they are now acting as an agent to their party, not to the people they purport to represent.
You can call any ty governing system a democracy if you want to play a game semantical hide and seek.you said the fact there was an investigation launched into a candidate and followed it with "democracy my ass"
please, tell me how the existence of an investigation contradicts the notion that this is a democracy?
Because you don't have your own . You have to tweet other people's . Enjoy being marginal.
a failed attack on democracy is an attack on democracy nevertheless
if you know the story, then you know that the requests and the scale of the efforts are non-comparableI know. Several courts were involved in the process, and each side was trying to do anything in their legal power to win. Democracy was in the hands of the courts.
I know the story.
Sounds like they all got every recount they were "en led to", per the supreme court.
not necessarily. if republicans controlled congress the certification process would have been a of a lot more contentious. that was the gameplan even after their legal attempts failed. some in congress (and trump himself) were even pushing for pence to unilaterally cancel the election resultsNot the same but another indication that democracy only goes as far as you can push it through the judicial process. It doesn't matter what the people vote for, it only matters what you can certify and win in court.
false. clinton could have sought legal election challenges and chose not to. she conceded then she pouted for a few years.not a flex, just reminding you that Clinton wasn't in office after the election so did not have the power to do anything.
no. they tried to convince clinton and her team to initiate election contests or recount requests. she declined. stein then sought a recount and paid all the money to get it done. clinton's attorney said that they didnt want to initiate anything because they saw no evidence of hacking or efforts to with vote totals, but they "participated" in the recount to ensure there was no ery.She had Jill Stein do it on her behalf. Hillary was too busy licking her wounds and without POTUS power to move mountains, she couldn't do anything. She held no office at the time.
suggesting that clinton solicited stein to do so on her behalf is conspiracy-bait
they could have tried issuing formal objections or filing lawsuits the way trumpers did. they didn't.Only in how much power they hold to actually do anything. If they are calling the POTUS illegitimate and they do not take action, it's most likely because they lack the power to do so and would like to remain wealthy.
you didnt use the word attack, but you followed that sentence with "Democracy my ass"Where did I say it was an attack on democracy? That's not my , that's someone else's .
please explain what you meant by that, then.
Clinton was investigated. Trump was investigated. Clinton was exonerated. Trump was exonerated. I'm glad we don't need to rehash those facts. I'm wondering how this demonstrates that democracy is a facade, particularly when you arent claiming that in had any impact on votes or the electionThe investigation shows that democracy is only a façade. While Hillary was being excused for her email scandal, Trump was being investigated. We don't need to rehash the facts surrounding the events.
long held by who?It's long been held (especially here) that what happens under your watch, especially by your administration, is your doing. You cannot duck out of that.
does that mean trump was responsible for the special counsel investigation into trump?
i also think it would be incredibly ty if a law enforcement agency chose to NOT launch an investigation into somebody just because they were a political candidate. the right thing to do would be to investigate but not in a public manner that would influence a future election. they kept the trump investigation under wraps until after the election.
when did i make this claim?Fine, let's use the dictionary:
democracy
[ dih-mok-ruh-see ]SHOW IPA
See synonyms for democracy on Thesaurus.com
noun, plural de·moc·ra·cies.
government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
a state having such a form of government:
The United States and Canada are democracies.
a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.
political or social equality; democratic spirit.
the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power.
At any time either elected official acted to do anything, they were acting as "elected agents" so you cannot say that Trump was less of an elected agent than was Obama. The question is whether or not they acted in the best interest of those who elected them (and the country as a whole). When a sitting POTUS uses the power of office to launch an investigation into a presidential candidate (and don't be so naive as to pretend you don't believe the POTUS knew the GOP candidate was being investigated) they are now acting as an agent to their party, not to the people they purport to represent.
the first definition you cited says that the power is vested in the people and exercised by their elected agents under a free electoral system. this definition doesnt say anything about acting "in the best interests" of anybody. if people want to elect corrupt heads they can do that. if people want to elect somebody who they believe will act in their best interests, then they should do that. people who thought trump was that... were naive in my opinion.
no. i can call a ty governing system a democracy is the power is vested in the people and that power is exercised by them or by elected agents under a free electoral system. as far as i know, in the US, the people do have the power to kick out awful leaders like trump. that trump and other republicans tried to weaken that structure is something to be concerned about, for sure.You can call any ty governing system a democracy if you want to play a game semantical hide and seek.
DMC:pure mismemory plus sophistry
Quite the quandary, Smedley.
I'm not doing line item responses with you since you like to put words in my mouth and then act like it was accidental. You're a lawyer, it's not accidental that you change someone's wording to suit your argument instead of finding a better argument.
There was no attack on democracy. At no point in time was democracy ever threatened, regardless of the pearl clutching going on here like Hitler 2.0 was imminent. We had a ty leader with a huge ego. He pushed the limits of the office and stepped over the line on a few occasions. Had democracy been threatened we'd have seen some bills introduced to rid the BoR of Amendments.. oh wait, that's what the democrats do.
The US government was literally attacked on Jan 6th.
Trump asked Brad to find votes for him after the state certification. Is that kosher?
Yes. This I agree with. You can attack a building of the government but that doesn't mean democracy was attacked. Did the riots attack free commerce?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)