US Politics Thread 2021-24

[Sonicfire1981]

Originally Posted by August

No they won't. This latest partisan attempt will fail just like all the others have.

Of course, because intimidation works. I also agree that impeachment is not ideal, but I would want to consult legal professionals how this interacts with "real world" criminal charges.
And you can't let it stand. You wouldn't let a burglar, armed to the teeth and a knife raised at your sleeping wife's throat go free, just because you walked in on him and he fled the scene.

Also: is this all you have to say to this?

[3catcircus]

Originally Posted by August

I have plenty of faith in the system and it's institutions, the people running them on the other hand, I have absolutely no trust at all.

Our system of voting used to work pretty good but now with electronic voting machines, mail in voting, unsupervised drop boxes and the outright ignoring of voting laws and regulations, it has become vulnerable to large scale manipulation.

The constant shouting down of everyone who testifies to witnessing it or even just thinks there may be some flames behind all the obvious smoke just proves to me that there is something to it.

The last thing we should do is shut up and take it for the good of the country as you suggest. As long as this is not fixed we don't have a country, we have an banana dictatorship and with troops patrolling the streets and the increasingly severe civil liberty crackdowns it's looking more and more like one too.

The time to fight that is now because it will just get more difficult as they cement their hold on power.

This.

There has been too much coincidence regarding the recent election as it pertains to alleged irregularities. Whether there is truth to the claims it not, it all should have been allowed to be presented in court as evidence. By throwing out cases before they even get to court due to "lack of standing," or rulings that procedurals weren't followed (e.g. filed too soon or filed too late), all it does is fuel conspiracy theories and rumors - which resulted in what happened on the 6th.

I tend to believe that there *were* irregularities that were swept under the rug by sympathetic authorities (or threatened authorities) since the type of people who want to be elected to high office or appointed to positions of power are the type of people who are willing to cheat to get there.

Would the irregularities have affected the outcome? We'll never know until the people running the system are removed and honest people put in their place. The hurdle is being able to get people elected or appointed who are honest...

It isn't our form of government that is the problem - it's the corrupt people who've perverted it for their own benefit.

And it isn't just politics. The was the recent case of cadets getting caught cheating at West Point. In years past, they would have suffered the disgrace that goes along with the honor system there - leading to bring kicked out. Instead, in the most recent incident, the chief of staff downplays it because most of them were freshman. Yeah, and? Even as freshman they're supposed to know what the honor code means because it is so simple - don't lie, cheat, or steal and don't tolerate anyone else doing it.

Imagine how much better our government would be if the sergeant at arms were allowed to apply such an honor system to congresspersons?

[bstanko6]

@rockstar...

I agree to a point about having faith in the system.

We had faith in our police officers once... but that is gone and we now have body cameras which is a good thing.

We had faith in church, but sexual abuse tossed that away!

We had faith In Judges, now they are monitored through transparency programs.

Faith is dead. The world wants transparency. And the election process is no exception.

The people have a right to examine the election process in every single aspect. We were told no.

The people wanted evidence looked at but were told no.

Under no circumstances should any part of the election process be barred from examination.

You say have faith... never in a million years.

Hayes got his investigation, Gore got his... Trump? Nah! Have faith they say.

Never in a million years.

If we can be examined by the government, and facially examined, GPS tracked, and tracked by toll road, taxes, and even what shows I watch on my phone...

I can examine the one and only thing that makes our democracy legit.

[Reece]

We had faith in church, but sexual abuse tossed that away!

Damn that's bad!! Care to say what denomination?

[Sonicfire1981]

Re election fraud:

There have been a couple dozen lawsuits , all leading nowhere because Guiliani, Powell and the like failed to present evidence of fraud. If they had it and did not present it... well, I believe in your culture you also have the freedom to choose your own lawyer. If the courts chose to ignore it, because all bought by liberals (?) - where is the evidence now?
Where is the huge pile of evidence that Kayleigh McEnany waved into Fox News' Camera? All she would have had to do is open the file and present a page or five. But it was just a huge stack of paper.
How come Guiliani never used the word "fraud" inside a courtroom?

Do you really think it's plausible that there's a whistleblower in Bidens Campaign team to tell us about the earpiece, the dementia, the diapers, while on the other hand democrats are able to suppress evidence of "biblical proportions"? Suppress it not only in leftwing us-media like cnn, etc, not only in all of US Media (including, I believe, OAN, because even they failed to back these claims) - but in all of world press, from Argentina to Switzerland, Australia to Nepal? They even suppressed in on Parler? Even suppressed it on every private homepage of every QAnonConspiracy theorist?

Is that plausible? Not even Tucker Carlson believes this, and he wants to believe... Or would it not be more plausible to repeat *baseless* claims in the hopes to find some thousands gullible enough to believe it? If those are armed and violent (which often goes hand in hand - even better.

EDIT: I forgot to mention - the pro-Trump DoJ could not find anything

[Catfish]

^ Again: Stop making sense. This the US politics thread!!

Read his morning that an impeachment is unlikely – while some republicans supported it, the majority did not.
Argument is that a president can only be impeached as long as he is president, and Trump is not anymore.
Since a call for armed rebellion is something also a civilian can be accused for, most judges of the constitution see this differently, but whatever.

Now that "he who must not be named" obviously founds a new "patriot" party i guess the republicans will lose a lot of votes to him.

[Skybird]

Stupid Republicans will pay a high price for their shortsighted opportunism thta makes them rejecting to breakl with Biden'S predecssor . It will lead to the division of the party, with the former Republicans loosing it to the newly dominating orange legion.

Good for the Democrats and their left wing. Divide et impera.

And the US' once dominance in the world? Will go the way of the British empire. With respectability and trustworthiness gone, nobody will dare to invest his complete future into it anymnore.

The next major defeat probably could be delivered via the US dollar. Europe and the Euro will suffer dearly from that, too, the Euro will go the way of the Dodo, too.

[3catcircus]

Originally Posted by Sonicfire1981

Re election fraud:

There have been a couple dozen lawsuits , all leading nowhere because Guiliani, Powell and the like failed to present evidence of fraud. If they had it and did not present it... well, I believe in your culture you also have the freedom to choose your own lawyer. If the courts chose to ignore it, because all bought by liberals (?) - where is the evidence now?
Where is the huge pile of evidence that Kayleigh McEnany waved into Fox News' Camera? All she would have had to do is open the file and present a page or five. But it was just a huge stack of paper.
How come Guiliani never used the word "fraud" inside a courtroom?

Do you really think it's plausible that there's a whistleblower in Bidens Campaign team to tell us about the earpiece, the dementia, the diapers, while on the other hand democrats are able to suppress evidence of "biblical proportions"? Suppress it not only in leftwing us-media like cnn, etc, not only in all of US Media (including, I believe, OAN, because even they failed to back these claims) - but in all of world press, from Argentina to Switzerland, Australia to Nepal? They even suppressed in on Parler? Even suppressed it on every private homepage of every QAnonConspiracy theorist?

Is that plausible? Not even Tucker Carlson believes this, and he wants to believe... Or would it not be more plausible to repeat *baseless* claims in the hopes to find some thousands gullible enough to believe it? If those are armed and violent (which often goes hand in hand - even better.

EDIT: I forgot to mention - the pro-Trump DoJ could not find anything

Evidence was not allowed to be presented due to *procedural* issues - not the quality of the evidence itself.

By that - I mean that a judge can say "we aren't allowing this to go to a trial because you filed your case too late." Or ... you filed your case too soon," or "You can't file a lawsuit because only this one particular official in that state can file it."

The issue here is that no evidence was allowed to be presented in almost every case - because it opens up such a pandora's box of exposing shenanigans, errors, mistakes, or defects within the voting system itself.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Catfish

Since a call for armed rebellion is something also a civilian can be accused for, most judges of the constitution see this differently, but whatever.

To convict someone in a court of law, not the Senate, you need evidence. Everything that Trump said in public as President has been recorded. Can you find any instance where Trump called for armed rebellion? Or for his followers to storm the Capital, damage property and fight with security? Without conclusive evidence, in other words, his actual words saying it, there wouldn't be much of a case.

[Sonicfire1981]

Originally Posted by 3catcircus

The issue here is that no evidence was allowed to be presented in almost every case - because it opens up such a pandora's box of exposing shenanigans, errors, mistakes, or defects within the voting system itself.

Hence my question: where is it then?

[Buddahaid]

Originally Posted by 3catcircus

Evidence was not allowed to be presented due to *procedural* issues - not the quality of the evidence itself.

By that - I mean that a judge can say "we aren't allowing this to go to a trial because you filed your case too late." Or ... you filed your case too soon," or "You can't file a lawsuit because only this one particular official in that state can file it."

The issue here is that no evidence was allowed to be presented in almost every case - because it opens up such a pandora's box of exposing shenanigans, errors, mistakes, or defects within the voting system itself.

That looks to be the case in general terms but due process still needs to be followed hence the results. I don't see any reference to the contents of Pandora's box but it's just Wikipedia and I'm not going to become a lawyer and try to slog through all the proceedings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-e...ntial_election

[Sonicfire1981]

Originally Posted by u crank

To convict someone in a court of law, not the Senate, you need evidence. Everything that Trump said in public as President has been recorded. Can you find any instance where Trump called for armed rebellion? Or for his followers to storm the Capital, damage property and fight with security? Without conclusive evidence, in other words, his actual words saying it, there wouldn't be much of a case.

Yes you can. read my post, if you may. I'll repeat the important parts: "We'll march to the capital, I'll be there with you...", "these people here are not taking it any longer...", "you have to show strength...", "our country has had enough..." "you have to get your people to fight" SIC! "We have to get rid of the weak congress-people..." "it is time that somebody did something about it...", "we have it deep in our souls, and we fight. we fight like hell. and if you don't fight like hell you won't have a country anymore." That was some quotes of the (n/sh)ameless.
For giggles: "Lets have trial by combat!" (R. Guliani on the same stage)
“We’re coming for you,” (Don Jr. towards republicans that we're not supporting the now-ex-president.

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Sonicfire1981

Yes you can. read my post, if you may. I'll repeat the important parts: "We'll march to the capital, I'll be there with you...", "these people here are not taking it any longer...", "you have to show strength...", "our country has had enough..." "you have to get your people to fight" SIC! "We have to get rid of the weak congress-people..." "it is time that somebody did something about it...", "we have it deep in our souls, and we fight. we fight like hell. and if you don't fight like hell you won't have a country anymore." That was some quotes of the (n/sh)ameless.
For giggles: "Lets have trial by combat!" (R. Guliani on the same stage)
“We’re coming for you,” (Don Jr. towards republicans that we're not supporting the now-ex-president.

Here's the problem you have pushing that as a reason why a handful of people did what they did. First, as someone living in this country those words did not in any way influence me and a tremendous number of others in this country to even think about becoming destructive. Second you have not identified nor interrogated anyone involved therefore its impossible for you too know why they did what they did. You can only assume and your assumptions are based on what your favorite media source feeds you that gets regurgitated here.

[Sonicfire1981]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

Here's the problem you have pushing that as a reason why a handful of people did what they did. First, as someone living in this country those words did not in any way influence me and a tremendous number of others in this country to even think about becoming destructive. Second you have not identified nor interrogated anyone involved therefore its impossible for you too know why they did what they did. You can only assume and your assumptions are based on what your favorite media source feeds you that gets regurgitated here.

i wrote about that already, too

[mapuc]

It's your country= your laws

As an outsider - It is weird to see an elected person can go free-because s/he has party friends in the Congress or Senate.

It looks like the former President will not get a verdict after all-Seems there's not enough Rep. to support this.

From what I have read and heard in the news here after Jan. 6. The Former President has encouraged his followers to demonstrate near Capitol Hill.

I can't say if he has said-that they should directly or indirectly "invade" the Capitol

Markus