Low energy. Deranged and committed to overthrowing democracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Thread can be closed, war is over.
Printable View
Low energy. Deranged and committed to overthrowing democracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Thread can be closed, war is over.
If millions are disenfranchised as the Republicans want, the country is over.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheXFactor
Fuck them. End the filibuster, admit 2 new states, pack the court and deny ANY federal funding to any state that suppresses voters.
Enjoy having him as your 2024 nominee. You'll lose even bigger next time. I'm sure Team Retard will say he won again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Trump and Biden will be dead by then, hopefully anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter SobchakEnjoy having him as your 2024 nominee. You'll lose even bigger next time. I'm sure Team Retard will say he won again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Druff is probably secretly praying for the former, but I don’t he wants to see a liberal Black female former prosecutor as the Democratic president.Quote:
Originally Posted by nightmarefishTrump and Biden will be dead by then, hopefully anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter Sobchak
I read that "only" 68% of CPAC attendees want Trump to be the nominee again. Only! If he runs nobody will be able to touch him in the primaries. He'll get crushed in the general though. Unless millions of votes are suppressed by the state-level Republican cheating they're planning. Any state that tries to suppress voters like that should lose the right to run their elections at all.
God, you're awful. making people show up in person AND with valid ID isn't voter suppressionQuote:
Originally Posted by Walter Sobchak
I've always been in favor of ID's, but how are the rest of these measures defensible?
Why? A valid state issued ID card or driver's license should be good enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloppy Joe
You don't need a "voter ID".
Republican leadership in Georgia has come to an end.
So Republicans last option is to surpress the vote.
Stacey Abrams will become the new Governor of Georgia.
https://static.onecms.io/wp-content/...y-Abrams-1.jpg
Interesting article by John Boehner on how the Republican Party became fully radicalized party of conspiracy theory loons
https://www.politico.com/news/magazi...excerpt-478506
Panic Rooms, Birth Certificates and the Birth of GOP Paranoia
How America’s center-right party started to lose its mind, as told by the man who tried to keep it sane.
John Boehner served as speaker of the United States House of Representatives for nearly five years (January 2011-October 2015), and represented the Eighth Congressional District of Ohio from 1991 to 2015. He now serves as senior strategic adviser for Squire Patton Boggs LLP. This essay is adapted from his book ON THE HOUSE, to be published by St. Martin’s Press on April 13, 2021.
In the 2010 midterm election, voters from all over the place gave President Obama what he himself called “a shellacking.” And oh boy, was it ever. You could be a total moron and get elected just by having an R next to your name—and that year, by the way, we did pick up a fair number in that category.
Retaking control of the House of Representatives put me in line to be the next Speaker of the House over the largest freshman Republican class in history: 87 newly elected members of the GOP. Since I was presiding over a large group of people who’d never sat in Congress, I felt I owed them a little tutorial on governing. I had to explain how to actually get things done. A lot of that went straight through the ears of most of them, especially the ones who didn’t have brains that got in the way. Incrementalism? Compromise? That wasn’t their thing. A lot of them wanted to blow up Washington. That’s why they thought they were elected.
Some of them, well, you could tell they weren’t paying attention because they were just thinking of how to fundraise off of outrage or how they could get on Hannity that night. Ronald Reagan used to say something to the effect that if I get 80 or 90 percent of what I want, that’s a win. These guys wanted 100 percent every time. In fact, I don’t think that would satisfy them, because they didn’t really want legislative victories. They wanted wedge issues and conspiracies and crusades.
To them, my talk of trying to get anything done made me a sellout, a dupe of the Democrats, and a traitor. Some of them had me in their sights from day one. They saw me as much of an “enemy” as the guy in the White House. Me, a guy who had come to the top of the leadership by exposing corruption and pushing conservative ideas. Now I was a “liberal collaborator.” So that took some getting used to. What I also had not anticipated was the extent to which this new crowd hated—and I mean hated—Barack Obama.
By 2011, the right-wing propaganda nuts had managed to turn Obama into a toxic brand for conservatives. When I was first elected to Congress, we didn’t have any propaganda organization for conservatives, except maybe a magazine or two like National Review. The only people who used the internet were some geeks in Palo Alto. There was no Drudge Report. No Breitbart. No kooks on YouTube spreading dangerous nonsense like they did every day about Obama.
“He’s a secret Muslim!”
“He hates America!”
“He’s a communist!”
And of course the truly nutty business about his birth certificate. People really had been brainwashed into believing Barack Obama was some Manchurian candidate planning to betray America.
Mark Levin was the first to go on the radio and spout off this crazy nonsense. It got him ratings, so eventually he dragged Hannity and Rush to Looneyville along with him. My longtime friend Roger Ailes, the head of Fox News, was not immune to this. He got swept into the conspiracies and the paranoia and became an almost unrecognizable figure.
I’d known Ailes for a long time, since his work with George H.W. Bush in the early 1990s. He’d gone to college in Ohio, and since we had that connection, he sought me out at some event and introduced himself. Years later, in August of 1996, when I was in San Diego for the Republican National Convention, I ended up having dinner with Ailes and a veteran broadcasting executive named Rupert Murdoch. At that dinner they told me all about this new TV network they were starting. I had no idea I was listening to the outline of something that would make my life a living hell down the line. Sure enough, that October, Fox News hit the airwaves.
I kept in touch with Roger and starting in the early 2000s, I’d stop in and see him whenever I was in New York for fundraisers. We’d shoot the breeze and talk politics. We got to know each other pretty well.
Murdoch, on the other hand, was harder to know. Sometimes he’d invite me to watch the Super Bowl in the Fox box, or he’d stop by the office. Wherever he was, you could tell he was the man in charge. He was a businessman, pure and simple. He cared about ratings and the bottom line. He also wanted to make sure he was ahead of any political or policy developments coming down the line. He was always asking who was up, who was down, what bills could pass and what couldn’t. If he entertained any of the kooky conspiracy theories that started to take over his network, he kept it a secret from me. But he clearly didn’t have a problem with them if they helped ratings.
At some point after the 2008 election, something changed with my friend Roger Ailes. I once met him in New York during the Obama years to plead with him to put a leash on some of the crazies he was putting on the air. It was making my job trying to accomplish anything conservative that much harder. I didn’t expect this meeting to change anything, but I still thought it was bullshit, and I wanted Roger to know it.
When I put it to him like that, he didn’t have much to say. But he did go on and on about the terrorist attack on the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi, which he thought was part of a grand conspiracy that led back to Hillary Clinton. Then he outlined elaborate plots by which George Soros and the Clintons and Obama (and whoever else came to mind) were trying to destroy him.
“They’re monitoring me,” he assured me about the Obama White House. He told me he had a “safe room” built so he couldn’t be spied on. His mansion was being protected by combat-ready security personnel, he said. There was a lot of conspiratorial talk. It was like he’d been reading whacked-out spy novels all weekend.
And it was clear that he believed all of this crazy stuff. I walked out of that meeting in a daze. I just didn’t believe the entire federal government was so terrified of Roger Ailes that they’d break about a dozen laws to bring him down. I thought I could get him to control the crazies, and instead I found myself talking to the president of the club. One of us was crazy. Maybe it was me.
I have no idea what the relationship between Ailes and Murdoch was like, or if Ailes ever would go off on these paranoid tangents during meetings with his boss. But Murdoch must have thought Ailes was good for business, because he kept him in his job for years.
Places like Fox News were creating the wrong incentives. Sean Hannity was one of the worst. I’d known him for years, and we used to have a good relationship. But then he decided he felt like busting my ass every night on his show. So one day, in January of 2015, I finally called him and asked: “What the hell?” I wanted to know why he kept bashing House Republicans when we were actually trying to stand up to Obama.
“Well, you guys don’t have a plan,” he whined.
“Look,” I told him, “our plan is pretty simple: we’re just going to stand up for what we believe in as Republicans.”
I guess that wasn’t good enough for him. The conversation didn’t progress very far. At some point I called him a nut. Anyway, it’s safe to say our relationship never got any better.
Besides the homegrown “talent” at Fox, with their choice of guests they were making people who used to be fringe characters into powerful media stars. One of the first prototypes out of their laboratory was a woman named Michele Bachmann.
Bachmann, who had represented Minnesota's 6th Congressional District since 2007 and made a name for herself as a lunatic ever since, came to meet with me in the busy period in late 2010 after the election. She wanted a seat on the Ways and Means Committee, the most powerful committee in the House. There were many members in line ahead of her for a post like this. People who had waited patiently for their turn and who also, by the way, weren’t wild-eyed crazies.
There was no way she was going to get on Ways and Means, the most prestigious committee in Congress, and jump ahead of everyone else in line. Not while I was Speaker. In earlier days, a member of Congress in her position wouldn’t even have dared ask for something like this. Sam Rayburn would have laughed her out of the city.
So I told her no—diplomatically, of course. But as she kept on talking, it dawned on me. This wasn’t a request of the Speaker of the House. This was a demand.
Her response to me was calm and matter-of-fact. “Well, then I’ll just have to go talk to Sean Hannity and everybody at Fox,” she said, “and Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, and everybody else on the radio, and tell them that this is how John Boehner is treating the people who made it possible for the Republicans to take back the House.”
I wasn’t the one with the power, she was saying. I just thought I was. She had the power now.
She was right, of course.
She was a conservative media darling and, by then, the conservative media was already eyeing me skeptically. She had me where it hurt. Even if I wanted to help her, and I sure as hell didn’t, it wasn’t a decision I had the power to make on my own. That power belongs to a little-known but very important group called the Steering Committee.
I knew there was no way the Steering Committee would approve putting Bachmann on Ways and Means. The votes just weren’t there. If I even pushed the issue, they wouldn’t have let me leave the meeting without fastening me into a straitjacket. But then, Bachmann wouldn’t go on TV and the radio to explain the nuances of House Steering Committee procedure. She’d just rip my head off every night, over and over again. That was a headache I frankly didn’t want or need.
I suggested the House Intelligence committee to Bachmann as an alternative, and mercifully, she liked it. It would be a good perch for anyone wanting to build up their foreign policy chops for a run for president, which she was already considering— Lord help us all. None too pleased was the man preparing to take up the gavel as chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Rep. Mike Rogers from Michigan, an army veteran who had also served in the FBI. So I took my lumps from Rogers, and Bachmann took her seat on the committee.
The funny thing is, Michele Bachmann turned out to be a very focused, hardworking member—even though she spent a few months later in 2011 on a short-lived campaign for president. She showed up to the committee, did her homework, and ended up winning over her fellow members with her dedication. Mike Rogers was impressed—and I have to admit, so was I. The whole situation ended up working out well for everyone. As one of those old Boehnerisms goes, “Get the right people on the bus, and help them find the right seat.”
In January 2011, as the new Republican House majority was settling in and I was getting adjusted to the Speakership, I was asked about the birth certificate business by Brian Williams of NBC News. My answer was simple: “The state of Hawaii has said that President Obama was born there. That’s good enough for me.” It was a simple statement of fact. But you would have thought I’d called Ronald Reagan a communist. I got all kinds of shit for it—emails, letters, phone calls. It went on for a couple weeks. I knew we would hear from some of the crazies, but I was surprised at just how many there really were.
All of this crap swirling around was going to make it tough for me to cut any deals with Obama as the new House Speaker. Of course, it has to be said that Obama didn’t help himself much either. He could come off as lecturing and haughty. He still wasn’t making Republican outreach a priority. But on the other hand—how do you find common cause with people who think you are a secret Kenyan Muslim traitor to America?
Under the new rules of Crazytown, I may have been Speaker, but I didn’t hold all the power. By 2013 the chaos caucus in the House had built up their own power base thanks to fawning right-wing media and outrage-driven fundraising cash. And now they had a new head lunatic leading the way, who wasn’t even a House member. There is nothing more dangerous than a reckless asshole who thinks he is smarter than everyone else. Ladies and gentlemen, meet Senator Ted Cruz. He enlisted the crazy caucus of the GOP in what was a truly dumbass idea. Not that anybody asked me.
There probably isn’t a single person in this country that is against maintaining the integrity of fair elections. However, there is no evidence of significant voter fraud that warrants the measures that are being proposed especially if it disproportionality disenfranchises specific socioeconomic and racial groups. Just because the NEO GOP says that there is “voter fraud” doesn’t make it true. They have never provided any significant evidence supporting their claims.
:thisQuote:
Originally Posted by BartHanson
So if Democrats hammer advertisements everywhere that they're going to be at polling places handing out food and water to people in line to vote, you think that's okay?Quote:
Originally Posted by BartHanson
Because there's obviously some very big problems with that.
Easy solution: ensure nobody has to stand in line for more than 15-20 min, unlike the average of over an hour in many mostly black urban voting places.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffSo if Democrats hammer advertisements everywhere that they're going to be at polling places handing out food and water to people in line to vote, you think that's okay?Quote:
Originally Posted by BartHanson
Because there's obviously some very big problems with that.
I'm posting this again because it got buried in a Sydney Powell thread, and I'm unsure if you read it:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffSo if Democrats hammer advertisements everywhere that they're going to be at polling places handing out food and water to people in line to vote, you think that's okay?Quote:
Originally Posted by BartHanson
Because there's obviously some very big problems with that.
Druff, this is the thing I don’t get about you. I’m going to assume that you are in favor of democracy even if you don’t agree with party in power (correct me if my assumption is wrong).
Whereas its patently obvious that a significant portion of the GOP would rather stay in power and have their policies in place at all costs regardless if they lost a democratically held election. But you continue to support the GOP because you agree with their policies. So which is more important, the policies or the democracy? Do you favor a more autocratic type system if the people in power are more aligned with your political beliefs?
A good parallel would be if the GOP suddenly wanted to throw all of the jews out of the country. You would agree with them on almost all their policies, except the jewish exile, so would this be a disqualifying ideal for you to stop supporting the GOP? How is this any different from agreeing with all of the GOPs policies accept them not upholding democratically held elections?
And don’t kid yourself if you think that my premise is a flawed. Most of the entire GOP house were willing to throw out the results of the election.
Whuddabout this hypothetical scenario to balance out the actual flagrant voter suppression tactics of the GOP?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffSo if Democrats hammer advertisements everywhere that they're going to be at polling places handing out food and water to people in line to vote, you think that's okay?Quote:
Originally Posted by BartHanson
Because there's obviously some very big problems with that.
I don't get it?
John Boehner threw Trump apologists like Druff under the bus.
https://youtu.be/RylmpOXclKI
The Georgia voter law thing is now split into two threads. I have been posting about it mainly in the other one.Quote:
Originally Posted by BartHansonI'm posting this again because it got buried in a Sydney Powell thread, and I'm unsure if you read it:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Druff, this is the thing I don’t get about you. I’m going to assume that you are in favor of democracy even if you don’t agree with party in power (correct me if my assumption is wrong).
Whereas its patently obvious that a significant portion of the GOP would rather stay in power and have their policies in place at all costs regardless if they lost a democratically held election. But you continue to support the GOP because you agree with their policies. So which is more important, the policies or the democracy? Do you favor a more autocratic type system if the people in power are more aligned with your political beliefs?
A good parallel would be if the GOP suddenly wanted to throw all of the jews out of the country. You would agree with them on almost all their policies, except the jewish exile, so would this be a disqualifying ideal for you to stop supporting the GOP? How is this any different from agreeing with all of the GOPs policies accept them not upholding democratically held elections?
And don’t kid yourself if you think that my premise is a flawed. Most of the entire GOP house were willing to throw out the results of the election.
Here's a writeup I did yesterday about the Georgia law, and why it's not "voter suppression":
https://pokerfraudalert.com/forum/sh...l=1#post970218
So yes, I'm in favor of democracy. However, democracy doesn't necessarily mean that we have to go along with every Democratic-formed modification to longtime voting procedures, or we're racist and anti-democracy. It means we have a different opinion on voter law.
Would many Republicans have wanted to throw out the results of the Biden/Trump election, believing in phantom "voter fraud"? Yes. Would that be wrong? Yes.
Would many Democrats have wanted to throw out the results of the Hillary/Trump election, believing that Russia interfered and handed the election to Trump? Yes. Would that be wrong? Yes.
See? It goes both ways. The fashionable thing to do these days is to find a reason to claim you were cheated, instead of just taking your L and moving on. I don't agree with that shit on either side.
Regarding your example about the GOP exiling Jews, it's absurd and not worthy of a serious answer. But also note that, again, you're talking about policy here. That would be a MAJOR policy change, and obviously at that point I couldn't claim to agree with the major policies of the GOP.
As it stands today, I do agree with the major policies of the GOP, including most of the Georgia voter law. Go to the link I posted above to see why.
More legitimate voting equals no more GOP.
It's unequivocally meant to make voting harder, despite every attempt to uncover fraud.
Babble away about calling it racism or suppression, it's just designed to make legitimate voting harder for Americans, because Republicans can no longer win otherwise.
That's the only reason.
Do you actually believe the BS you’re selling here??Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloppy Joe
That's nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloppy Joe
There is no evidence that Republicans are winning because of suppression or inability to vote.
Voting is a right. Effortless voting is not a right.
If you don't vote because a bus doesn't drive up to your door, or because you can't use a drop box 24 hours a day, then tough luck. The opportunity to vote is there for everyone, and there are plenty of ways to do it.
COVID presented a new challenge, because people (understandably) didn't want to go indoors to vote, and risk catching the virus. Therefore, several nonstandard ways of voting were added for exactly that reason. Now the Democrats want to keep these nonstandard voting methods permanently, because it benefits them.
It's all partisan bullshit. Democrats are trying to exploit COVID-related temporary changes and make them permanent, and are whining "suppression" and "racism" when they're being rolled back.
If people in your party aren't voting enough, that's your party's problem. The solution is to encourage them to vote, run get-out-the-vote campaigns, and put out the message about the need for more participation. The solution is NOT to create all kinds of absurd new ways to vote (many of which can be exploited by fraudsters) in order to cater to the lazy/apathetic wing of the party.
But look... I'm willing to concede that there are differing ways to look at this, and there are several valid opinions on this matter. But what I'm not willing to concede is that this is any kind of "suppression", and LOL at corporations trying to please their woke overlords by pretending to be outraged by the "racism" of the Georgia voting laws.
The whole thing is just so dishonest. Both parties try to jockey for laws which help them. That's been the case since way before we were born, and it's still the case today. To call this anything else is just plain ignorance.
This is correct. What do things like the number of days of early voting, which days of the week have early voting, whether you can vote a straight party ticket and how many drop boxes there are have to do with voter fraud?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloppy Joe
Answer: nothing. They are meant to suppress turnout and nothing more.
No, they are meant to be rollbacks of stupid measures which cater to lazy people who won't vote unless it's made effortless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter SobchakThis is correct. What do things like the number of days of early voting, which days of the week have early voting, whether you can vote a straight party ticket and how many drop boxes there are have to do with voter fraud?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloppy Joe
Answer: nothing. They are meant to suppress turnout and nothing more.
Most of this crap didn't exist before COVID, and was specially allowed for that purpose. The goal isn't to have the most possible voters. The goal is to provide everyone a reasonable and fair opportunity to register to vote and cast a ballot. If some people don't wish to expend the effort to do so, then they don't get to vote.
That's the way it's always been, and that's the way it should continue to be.
Most states have had early voting for a long time. Most states have had straight ticket voting for a long time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffNo, they are meant to be rollbacks of stupid measures which cater to lazy people who won't vote unless it's made effortless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter Sobchak
Most of this crap didn't exist before COVID, and was specially allowed for that purpose. The goal isn't to have the most possible voters. The goal is to provide everyone a reasonable and fair opportunity to register to vote and cast a ballot. If some people don't wish to expend the effort to do so, then they don't get to vote.
That's the way it's always been, and that's the way it should continue to be.
voting doesn't have to be effortless, but there shouldn't be any unreasonable roadblocks to it either. Standing in line for 8 hours on a work day is ridiculous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter SobchakMost states have had early voting for a long time. Most states have had straight ticket voting for a long time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
voting doesn't have to be effortless, but there shouldn't be any unreasonable roadblocks to it either. Standing in line for 8 hours on a work day is ridiculous.
I wish we could all vote from our phones, but the system will be compromised. I want voting to be easy, but I also want it verifiable. We should have to show ID to vote.
Internet voting is a terrible idea I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cerveza FriaQuote:
Originally Posted by Walter Sobchak
I wish we could all vote from our phones, but the system will be compromised. I want voting to be easy, but I also want it verifiable. We should have to show ID to vote.
Most of the changes being pushed by Republicans have nothing to do with ID.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter SobchakInternet voting is a terrible idea I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cerveza Fria
Most of the changes being pushed by Republicans have nothing to do with ID.
Well, I'm not a Republican. Officially NPA (No Party Affiliation - that is the term used in Florida for Independent). I think that voting shouldn't be an ordeal. You shouldn't have to wait in line for hours to vote. I have no problem with mail in voting, but it should be verifiable and the person should request it. Also, it should be postmarked by the day of the election. I do have an issue with ballot harvesting, especially when it comes to the elderly. Too much chance of fraud or intimidation.
Biden now wants to pack the SCOTUS. Civil war is coming.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bid...t-packing-push
double post.
I'm sure you'll be hiding in your basement jerking off to your gun collection like a huge pussy, like you were on January 6.Quote:
Originally Posted by desertrunner
Druff is ready for civil war...
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...75a5300150.jpg
Just about every other avenue of life continues to hone processes to make things more convenient for people to engage in. Georgia is a small snapshot of this. Nobody wants to stand in line all day to vote, so if a process can be developed to make it better and was tirelessly examined for evidence of fraud, the only reason to pull it back and add additional barriers is because the result was undesirable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffThat's nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloppy Joe
There is no evidence that Republicans are winning because of suppression or inability to vote.
Voting is a right. Effortless voting is not a right.
If you don't vote because a bus doesn't drive up to your door, or because you can't use a drop box 24 hours a day, then tough luck. The opportunity to vote is there for everyone, and there are plenty of ways to do it.
COVID presented a new challenge, because people (understandably) didn't want to go indoors to vote, and risk catching the virus. Therefore, several nonstandard ways of voting were added for exactly that reason. Now the Democrats want to keep these nonstandard voting methods permanently, because it benefits them.
It's all partisan bullshit. Democrats are trying to exploit COVID-related temporary changes and make them permanent, and are whining "suppression" and "racism" when they're being rolled back.
If people in your party aren't voting enough, that's your party's problem. The solution is to encourage them to vote, run get-out-the-vote campaigns, and put out the message about the need for more participation. The solution is NOT to create all kinds of absurd new ways to vote (many of which can be exploited by fraudsters) in order to cater to the lazy/apathetic wing of the party.
But look... I'm willing to concede that there are differing ways to look at this, and there are several valid opinions on this matter. But what I'm not willing to concede is that this is any kind of "suppression", and LOL at corporations trying to please their woke overlords by pretending to be outraged by the "racism" of the Georgia voting laws.
The whole thing is just so dishonest. Both parties try to jockey for laws which help them. That's been the case since way before we were born, and it's still the case today. To call this anything else is just plain ignorance.
Yes, both parties jockey for laws to help them, and often the average American suffers as a result. More voter turnout should be objectively good for a democracy.
Less legitimate voters are going to participate in democracy as a result of Republican action. This is by design, and you're being dishonest with yourself if you can't admit that. You make a balanced argument otherwise; I just think it's needless to roll back methods that were thoroughly examined for fraud and none was uncovered.
I hope I would feel the same way if such methods led to mass increases in Republican turnout, but admit I would probably look to nitpick.
The impetus behind this was a Republican president being emotionally incapable of accepting a loss, and pushing a false narrative about rampant fraud, which culminated in equally emotionally compromised people storming the Capitol.
I guess retardation has its rewards.
Are you actually claiming that the actions of democrats objecting to the Russian interference in the 2016 election is the same as the 2020 attempt by the republicans to overturn this past election?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
In 2020, 66% of GOP house members voted to reject the electors from PA and 58% voted to reject the electors from AZ. If it had not been for the Capitol riot more states would have been brought to the floor for a vote on elector rejection that would have yielded similar results. Trump also directly pressured state leaders in Georgia to “find” votes and publicly called upon his vice president to not count the certified electors and send them back to the states.
The two aren’t even in the same universe. The main difference being that the republicans would have overturned the election if they could, regardless if no voter fraud had been proven. What you don't seem to get, Druff, is that you have a class of GOP lawmakers in power now that don't care about democratic norms. They want to stay in power because they believe their policies are better for the country then the dems. It doesn't matter to them if they don't represent the majority of the country. And this is why I keep getting back to the question of whether or not you want your policies in place regardless if they are not consistent with a democratically held election. Time to open your eyes and realize that the current GOP thinks they know better than the rest of us. You agree with their policies but won't specifically call them out on their move towards a more authoritarian state by arguing ridiculous whataboutism of "both sides do it".
Not only are they not in the same universe, Druff you have mischaracterized the reaction to the Russian interference. What many said after the election, including many Republicans, and which was CONFIRMED by the FBI and CIA, was that Russia mounted a psy ops/disinformation campaign to influence voters in Trump's favor. Very few if any said that the result of the election was invalid or rigged and should be overturned. Everyone admitted that Trump won the electoral college. The Republicans in 2020 were trying to throw out MILLIONS of legally cast ballots, and it was not just crazy people doing it, it was most of the elected Republican members of the House and some in the Senate too, along with a riot aimed at overthrowing the government to install Trump as unelected dictator regardless of the vote. HUGE difference. Not the same thing, not the same ballpark, not the same planet. False equivalence at its finest.Quote:
Originally Posted by BartHansonAre you actually claiming that the actions of democrats objecting to the Russian interference in the 2016 election is the same as the 2020 attempt by the republicans to overturn this past election?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
In 2020, 66% of GOP house members voted to reject the electors from PA and 58% voted to reject the electors from AZ. If it had not been for the Capitol riot more states would have been brought to the floor for a vote on elector rejection that would have yielded similar results. Trump also directly pressured state leaders in Georgia to “find” votes and publicly called upon his vice president to not count the certified electors and send them back to the states.
The two aren’t even in the same universe. The main difference being that the republicans would have overturned the election if they could, regardless if no voter fraud had been proven. What you don't seem to get, Druff, is that you have a class of GOP lawmakers in power now that don't care about democratic norms. They want to stay in power because they believe their policies are better for the country then the dems. It doesn't matter to them if they don't represent the majority of the country. And this is why I keep getting back to the question of whether or not you want your policies in place regardless if they are not consistent with a democratically held election. Time to open your eyes and realize that the current GOP thinks they know better than the rest of us. You agree with their policies but won't specifically call them out on their move towards a more authoritarian state by arguing ridiculous whataboutism of "both sides do it".
No civil war though.
:lol2
LOL Team Retard
LOL Team Retard
https://twitter.com/liz_cheney/statu...639695881?s=21
Wondering if Druff thinks the GOP should oust Liz Cheney from her leadership role in the house because she didn’t speak out enough against Maxine Waters. Druff, will you support the 2024 republican nominee for president if that person states that the 2020 election was illegitimate, stolen or rigged? Is there any disqualifying attribute that would cause you not to support the nomination or will you support anyone that aligns with your policies?
I don't think they should oust Liz Cheney.
The GOP isn't "all about" the policies, but the policies are what keeps me voting for them. I will not vote for the other side which pretty much wants to do everything I'm against.