Options still exists to right the ship....

a reply to: nenothtu

Yet, totalitarianism under socialism as a result of the legal election of Joe Biden is just ... ludicrous. I realize that's what's been ginned up among extemists, and pretend-extremists but it is at best political rhetoric.

So, no, there's no reasonable choice here to trample our Constitution. Anyone who tries is guilty of sedition.

I agree with you though. Enough is enough. Let's settle this. Are we going to be a Republic or not.

a reply to: Gryphon66
This pandemic has trampled our Constitution. Again, haven't seen you stand up for that.

a reply to: underwerks

You are part of the problem by saying

Any Republicans who don’t feel this way are in the wrong party.

That is the same as saying that ALL Democrats are antifa, rioting, looting a$$hats. It's not true. Y'all gotta stop painting everything with a broad brush.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: nenothtu


So, no, there's no reasonable choice here to trample our Constitution. Anyone who tries is guilty of sedition.

I agree.

There is no reason to trample the Constitution, and anyone who tries DOES need to be tried for sedition.

So it needs to be righted, hopefully before it is fully accomplished.

Hence the calls for activation of the Insurrection Act, which was written and passed by many of the same people who had a hand in framing that Constitution.

.

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978

I do not expect people who are blinded by Trumpism to clearly see or understand this, as they all think anyone denying them justice is part of the problem, even if the evidence does not stack up.

But they are a large chunk of the problem. Not the people really who are that large chunk, more so the insatiable need to be right instead of fair.

a reply to: nenothtu

The only insurrection on view here are those trying to overthrow a cerfied election and an Electoral College vote. (See COTUS Article II.)

The ludircrous and unfounded claims of election fraud have been denied or dismissed by our State courts system, the Federal Court system and the Supreme Court of the United States (See COTUS, Article III)

So we'll see what happens with these seditious threats, I'm going to say except for small-scale domestic terrorism, not much.

a reply to: Gryphon66
Gee
Thought the certification was jan 6?
Today is dec 16th?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: nenothtu

The only insurrection on view here are those trying to overthrow a cerfied election and an Electoral College vote. (See COTUS Article II.)

The ludircrous and unfounded claims of election fraud have been denied or dismissed by our State courts system, the Federal Court system and the Supreme Court of the United States (See COTUS, Article III)

Merely labeling something as "ludicrous" and "unfounded" does not make it non-factual, it merely labels it as such, in hopes it will just go away. Nothing has been established in courts, since so far they are just refusing to hear the cases. That neither refutes nor affirms the claims, since the claims are not heard at trial.

All it does is leave the sword hanging.

So we'll see what happens with these seditious threats, I'm going to say except for small-scale domestic terrorism, not much.

Yes, I suppose we will see, as time unfolds. Small scale domestic terrorism is nothing new to us. We've been watching it develop and express itself for nearly a year now.

I do agree with you, however, that I don't believe Trump will pull the trigger, despite the calls for it. I imagine this one will be fought out in the streets, since no one in authority has the testicular fortitude so far to allow it to be fought out in the courts.

.

a reply to: nenothtu

Yes, and quibbing about labels is a semantic argument.

Yes, the fact that the claims are not valid has been proven in court. That's what it means when a court dismisses a matter.

We've had weeks of logical explainations of why the hearsay and outright fabricated "evidence" of voter fraud, etc. is not valid.

Let us not even speak of the stupidly seditious relief that Texas et. al. requested. One State does not overthrow another State's election or certification or Electoral Votes.

No, Trump is a coward. Yet, there needs to be comeuppance for these blatant crimes against our Republic.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Just to add - If trump DOES somehow find the 'nads to pull the trigger, and it is then actually adjudicated and found, after that adjudication, to be unfounded, then you CAN try him for sedition... so where is the downside?

.

a reply to: nenothtu

He has no legal basis to invoke the Insurrection Act becuase he can't accept his election loss.

If he's dumb enough to try it, Congress will 25th Amendment his ass.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: nenothtu

Yes, and quibbing about labels is a semantic argument.

Yes, the fact that the claims are not valid has been proven in court. That's what it means when a court dismisses a matter.

We've had weeks of logical explainations of why the hearsay and outright fabricated "evidence" of voter fraud, etc. is not valid.

Let us not even speak of the stupidly seditious relief that Texas et. al. requested. One State does not overthrow another State's election or certification or Electoral Votes.

No, Trump is a coward. Yet, there needs to be comeuppance for these blatant crimes against our Republic.

Are not the labels themselves a semantic argument? Isn't that the basis of "semantics"?

You seem to be unaware of how court "dismissal" works. Cases are at times, and in particular in these times being discussed, dismissed before they are heard... i.e. the facts are never tried. In those cases, there is no determination of whether or not the facts asserted are valid or not. They are never heard to determine that.

You sure do seem to like tossing around that "sedition" label. Are you sure you understand what it means?

But yes, I agree with you that "there needs to be comeuppance for these blatant crimes against our Republic."

.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Do you find it curious that no one is finding these "mathematical anomalies" in the Trump-won states?

I know that Michigan and Georgia are holding public events in December to allow the public to review various voting/vote counting processes, so that's a positive note.

The greatest issue with so many is just simple ignorance.

Not really... No one is looking there maybe because the left won so they are in the nothing to see mode, and the right doesn't want to look to find anything there, but on the other hand maybe they both looked and didn't find any anomalies worth mentioning on either side.

My only real concern would be coverups. No one would do this unless there was a plan to cover it up such as software updates after the election, machines wipes, histories lost, so little auditing capabilities. Little or no signature, address, registration done etc...

If and I say "IF" there was fraud at the level to change the outcome of the election I wouldn't be surprise if we learn that a year from now. I truly do not want to see that...

originally posted by: SeektoUnderstand
Source

Friday should be interesting......

Donald John Trump is the 45th president of the United States.
November 3,2020 to December 18, 2020 = 45 days

interesting...

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: nenothtu

He has no legal basis to invoke the Insurrection Act becuase he can't accept his election loss.

No, the reason you give wouldn't be a basis for it. But, if he squints real hard and looks real close, I bet he can find a valid basis for it. It's possible, although probably not likely, that he is not quite as myopic as his detractors. There exists a slim possibility that he can see the bigger picture, rather than focusing on irrelevant and unsupported details.

If he's dumb enough to try it, Congress will 25th Amendment his ass.

That would be a cute attempt. maybe they should give it a shot.

.

a reply to: nenothtu

Is that what you think a President should do as a result of his Oath?

Squint and try to find an excuse to declare an insurrection?

Okie dokie.

Best.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Sure, if that's what it takes to defend that oath. Oaths are not to be taken lightly, and one should do whatever necessary to uphold them once they are given.

But I also bet he wouldn't have to squint that hard - just enough to see beyond the spurious assertion that he's doing it just "because he can't accept his election loss."

.

a reply to: SeektoUnderstand

The report required by President Trump's 2018 executive order is being held up by dni John Ratcliffe.

www.bloomberg.com...

I think deep State elements are attempting to hide the extent of election interference.

a reply to: Gryphon66
You still don't seem to understand.

This has nothing to do with Donald Trump.

It has everything to do with ensuring voter integrity and faith in government from US citizens for the foreseeable future.

In that way, he is upholding the Oath he took.

originally posted by: nenothtu
a reply to: Gryphon66

Sure, if that's what it takes to defend that oath. Oaths are not to be taken lightly, and one should do whatever necessary to defend them once they are given.

But I also bet he wouldn't have to squint that hard - just enough to see beyond the spurious assertion that he's doing it just "because he can't accept his election loss."

.

The Electoral College disagrees. As does the Supreme Court. As does Congress.

Do you know what the Insurrection Act allows? He can call out the various National Guards from the States and can direct the Armed Forces to assist AGAINST AN INSURRECTION.

Who's he going to attack? More than half the Country that voted for Biden?

Nah.