Cleanup in Aisle Lunatic (h/t romad1)

[oblong]

9 hours ago, Motown Bombers said:

The Democratic vote is more concentrated than the Republican vote. You don't need to overturn whole states. In Pennsylvania all you have to do is overturn Philadelphia. That's it. One jurisdiction. Same with Georgia. Throw out Atlanta and Trump wins easily. 

Then they will say “well since it’s all screwed up we need our legislature to decide it for us.  They will decide which slate of electors we send.  It’s the law”

[mtutiger]

9 hours ago, Archie said:

Serious questions...Do you feel the same way about Stacy Abrams and claims made by others in previous elections?

No.

That doesn't somehow make Trump's fake election fraud claims legit either.

[mtutiger]

9 hours ago, Motown Bombers said:

The Democratic vote is more concentrated than the Republican vote. You don't need to overturn whole states. In Pennsylvania all you have to do is overturn Philadelphia. That's it. One jurisdiction. Same with Georgia. Throw out Atlanta and Trump wins easily. 

My only question is, in this hypothetical, what kind of stability a government that would try to pull something like this off would have.

Put another way, its easy to come here and theorize about what a lot of Rs would have little hesitation of doing (based on 2020), but what does it look like in practice? If the Atlanta Metro area has the majority of Georgia's residents and a majority of Georgia residents vote for the Dem candidate but politicians turn around and throw out all the votes in Fulton County or something like that, why do we assume that the resulting government would have any legitimacy in the eyes of the majority?

The common refrain I hear on this is about "who has the guns", but I think thats a bit too simplistic about the aftermath.

[romad1]

I'm about a page into this and its amazing

https://newrepublic.com/article/164439/michael-flynn-profile-post-trump-long-game?utm_source=social&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=sharebtn&fbclid=IwAR00MU8WLQhvatNws0T7Lty5ymHPysZCYBtdYysGcjye8ox2VMuluALrhTA

Quote

Phoenix—the city, not the Vietnam war CIA assassination and rural Southeast Asia terrorism program run by technocrats with Ivy League degrees and names like “Blowtorch” Bob Komer—was my first stop. It was June, and Arizona was hot, 104 degrees. Flynn was supposed to be promoting a movie called The Deep Rig, with a keynote alongside the Overstock.com guy, before the screening of the film about the Cyber Ninja guy, who was behind the Arizona audit. This was all in support of the MyPillow guy’s contention that the 2020 election, in which theApprentice guy lost to the Delaware guy, was a sham, stolen by Democrats and Dominion Voting Systems. All of this was heavily promoted by the Biosphere 2 guy on his War Room podcast, fomenting protests that finally led to the QAnon Shaman guy bellowing while wearing flag face paint and buffalo horns in the Senate chamber during the riots at the Capitol on January 6.

 

[oblong]

2 hours ago, mtutiger said:

My only question is, in this hypothetical, what kind of stability a government that would try to pull something like this off would have.

Put another way, its easy to come here and theorize about what a lot of Rs would have little hesitation of doing (based on 2020), but what does it look like in practice? If the Atlanta Metro area has the majority of Georgia's residents and a majority of Georgia residents vote for the Dem candidate but politicians turn around and throw out all the votes in Fulton County or something like that, why do we assume that the resulting government would have any legitimacy in the eyes of the majority?

The common refrain I hear on this is about "who has the guns", but I think thats a bit too simplistic about the aftermath.

It wouldn’t matter. What could Atlanta do about it?  Nothing. They can’t vote them out.  Yes it won’t be legitimate but… what does that mean?   We are evolving to majority by geography.  The cities, which will have more people, will be governed by the rural because they will outnumber cities in terms of representation in the legislatures. 
 

the goal of the GOP isn’t legitimacy or honor. It’s power. By any means necessary. So what if people in Washington are unhappy. Or a bunch of lib labs. 

[Motown Bombers]

 

[mtutiger]

7 hours ago, oblong said:

It wouldn’t matter. What could Atlanta do about it?  Nothing. They can’t vote them out.  Yes it won’t be legitimate but… what does that mean?  

It means that there are a majority who would see the government as illegitimate. 

I have no idea what that would entail, but I think the assumption that people would just bend over and take that isn't  a guarantee either.

[1984Echoes]

1 minute ago, mtutiger said:

It means that there are a majority who would see the government as illegitimate. 

I have no idea what that would entail, but I think the assumption that people would just bend over and take that isn't  a guarantee either.

There would have to be some kind of backlash against the minority usurping the political majority unconstitutionally.

Personally, I would prefer - if for example Georgia threw out Democrat Electors whence a democratically elected President, a Democrat BTW, carried the state in favor of their own illegitimate electors - the President of the United States call 50,000 National Guardsman into the State of Georgia to arrest the Georgia State Legislature Republicans, and any other State Official (Governor, election officials, etc...) that played a part in tossing out the Constitutional Votes of Georgia Citizens in favor of their own political/ unconstitutional/ fascist interests, and charged with attempted coup, sedition, etc...

I would then want all of them executed.

But...

Maybe that's unreasonable.

[Tigeraholic1]

19 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said:

 

I would then want all of them executed.

But...

Maybe that's unreasonable.

The hate you spew sounds incredibly like the red hats. These two fractures are why our republic could fail. There is no comprise for either side.

 

Edited December 12, 2021 by Tigeraholic1

[smr-nj]

Ugly rhetoric. For sure.
 

….Not really much of a conversation starter, is it?

No. 

 

[1984Echoes]

5 minutes ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

The hate you spew sounds incredibly like the red hats. These two fractures are why our republic could fail. There is no comprise for either side.

I will stand by the following statement:

The fascists in this country have gone too far, the Red Hats have gone to far, and Trump and his insurrectionists have gone too far.

Are you willing to take up arms to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic? Because I already did, a long, long time ago. But I am willing to do it again.

It's not hate, it's patriotism. I am willing to defend the Constitution against fascism. Are you?

And BTW... yes, I do have an uncompromising hatred of fascism. If Republicans want to win office, and do it constitutionally, not by using illegal means... I have no problem whatsoever with their leadership. In fact I voted for Bush in 2004. (Then Obama, and then when the F.U. Tea Party Republicans took control of Congress... started my angst). But what they are doing right now is way the fuck out of line. It's unconstitutional, it's fascism... and they can go fuck themselves.

At least until they return to normal... whenever that may be.

[1984Echoes]

13 minutes ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

The hate you spew sounds incredibly like the red hats. These two fractures are why our republic could fail. There is no comprise for either side.

A couple of other points:

There are a couple of sayings.... which are very common, and would put my rhetoric in a bad light. As I can see the rejection of my statements are causing... One is "Never stoop to the level of the other guy", the other is "Turn the other cheek". Not bad sayings... that both say basically don't act crappy like the other guy...

However, there is a diametrically opposed saying that goes like this: "The bully will always get his comeuppance". The problem with this saying is that the Bully will NEVER get their comeuppance UNLESS... someone does NOT turn the other cheek. Or that someone specifically DOES stoop to the other person's level.

You can be upset at my harshness.

But that's what I am seeing in this country right now. As you've said... no compromise.

And I will not just simply roll over for these fascists, bullies, liars, and bigoted hate-mongering POS's that are rampaging through our country/ politics right now. 

They need to be put down. In the harshest measures possible. Even if you don't agree with that.

I will NOT turn the other cheek. And I will stoop to their level in order to fight back against their fascism/ hatred/ bigotry/ etc...

Even if that upsets quite a lot of people. In here, or otherwise.

[Archie]

1 hour ago, 1984Echoes said:

A couple of other points:

There are a couple of sayings.... which are very common, and would put my rhetoric in a bad light. As I can see the rejection of my statements are causing... One is "Never stoop to the level of the other guy", the other is "Turn the other cheek". Not bad sayings... that both say basically don't act crappy like the other guy...

However, there is a diametrically opposed saying that goes like this: "The bully will always get his comeuppance". The problem with this saying is that the Bully will NEVER get their comeuppance UNLESS... someone does NOT turn the other cheek. Or that someone specifically DOES stoop to the other person's level.

You can be upset at my harshness.

But that's what I am seeing in this country right now. As you've said... no compromise.

And I will not just simply roll over for these fascists, bullies, liars, and bigoted hate-mongering POS's that are rampaging through our country/ politics right now. 

They need to be put down. In the harshest measures possible. Even if you don't agree with that.

I will NOT turn the other cheek. And I will stoop to their level in order to fight back against their fascism/ hatred/ bigotry/ etc...

Even if that upsets quite a lot of people. In here, or otherwise.

You perfectly described the democrats in currently in office.  Your comments of hate and violence fit right in.  

[VegasTiger]

[oblong]

4 hours ago, mtutiger said:

It means that there are a majority who would see the government as illegitimate. 

I have no idea what that would entail, but I think the assumption that people would just bend over and take that isn't  a guarantee either.

There will be demonstrations and riots in Atlanta but nothing will change. The state legislatures and election commissioners will still run the show.  Republicans won’t care.  Rachel Maddow will have shows about it.  Twitter will tell us how awful it is. Lincoln Project and Bulwark will tell us how awful it is.  But the new rank and file GOP made up of acolytes of MTG and Boebart and Gaetz and Cawthorne will be victorious.  Gerrymandering at he state and congressional level will make urban majorities that represent a literal majority overall in that state into virtual minorities. States like MIchigan and Pennsylvania and Arizona and Georgia will be red. Our presidential elections will become moot.  The only hope is more states join the popular vote initiative. 

[mtutiger]

4 hours ago, oblong said:

There will be demonstrations and riots in Atlanta but nothing will change. The state legislatures and election commissioners will still run the show.  Republicans won’t care.  Rachel Maddow will have shows about it.  Twitter will tell us how awful it is. Lincoln Project and Bulwark will tell us how awful it is.  But the new rank and file GOP made up of acolytes of MTG and Boebart and Gaetz and Cawthorne will be victorious.  Gerrymandering at he state and congressional level will make urban majorities that represent a literal majority overall in that state into virtual minorities. States like MIchigan and Pennsylvania and Arizona and Georgia will be red. Our presidential elections will become moot.  The only hope is more states join the popular vote initiative. 

If our Presidential Elections become meaningless, it's easy to see the United States becoming completely ungovernable.

[Archie]

2 hours ago, mtutiger said:

If our Presidential Elections become meaningless, it's easy to see the United States becoming completely ungovernable.

That's exactly why I keep saying that election security is important.

[pfife]

11 hours ago, Archie said:

You perfectly described the democrats in currently in office.  Your comments of hate and violence fit right in.  

Amd you're trolling again.

It was Republicans that violently attacked the capitol in an armed insurrection.  

[pfife]

1 hour ago, Archie said:

That's exactly why I keep saying that election security is important.

Uh huh

If the election was stolen why hasn't anyone been charged with theft?

Edited December 12, 2021 by pfife

[pfife]

 

[pfife]

13 hours ago, mtutiger said:

It means that there are a majority who would see the government as illegitimate. 

I have no idea what that would entail, but I think the assumption that people would just bend over and take that isn't  a guarantee either.

What if before any of this many folks already thought the electoral collage already solidifies minority party power.... and nothing happens there except it gets worse?

[gehringer_2]

6 minutes ago, pfife said:

What if before any of this many folks already thought the electoral collage already solidifies minority party power.... and nothing happens there except it gets worse?

Someday we get a constitutional convention when CA tells the rest of country to either rebalance representation or they are seceding. The US needs CA a lot more than CA need the US. There won't a civil war to hold the union together this time.

Edited December 12, 2021 by gehringer_2

[gehringer_2]

2 hours ago, Archie said:

That's exactly why I keep saying that election security is important.

LOL - worrying about election security is what is known as 'rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic'. The problem in the US is not that election results are mis-counted, it's that correctly counted elections results do produce democratic outcomes. The Federal government is structurally undemocratic and getting more so all the time. That is what why the country is becoming ungovernable.  If you want to continue to cling to an 18th century anachronism that it makes any sense for the Constitution for recognize states on an equal basis when half of them are completely incapable of independent existence today, be my guest, but don't turn around and ask why the country doesn't work.

Until we stop feeding ourselves mythic nonsense about how great the US Constitution is (the Bill of Right maybe. Articles I&II not so much)  and realize that the national contract is obsolete, things will continue to swirl down the tubes.

Edited December 12, 2021 by gehringer_2

[pfife]

I'm sure these good faith justices will treat guns and abortion the same because they are good faith justices.   

 

[mtutiger]

46 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

Someday we get a constitutional convention when CA tells the rest of country to either rebalance representation or they are seceding. The US needs CA a lot more than CA need the US. There won't a civil war to hold the union together this time.

I dunno. But the day that a theoretical overturning of the Presidency happens, this country gets even harder to govern than it is now. And yeah, states like NY and CA and IL, are they gonna sit that debate out? 

Not that it was ever really possible (at least this time), but just try to imagine a world where Trump succeeded on 1/6. I dont think the other 83 million, plus all the states that voted for Biden, just sit meekly and take that. That appears to be a basic assumption I see whenever this debate comes up

Edited December 12, 2021 by mtutiger